News-Record.com

Plus the Christmas Tree is really a PAGAN symbol that Christians hi-jacked.

Don,

Two things.... So. and What is your point?

Not speaking for Don, but in my view a Christmas tree in a public setting does not amount to an establishment of religion.

In arguing that point, however, you might contend that a Christmas tree isn't exclusively Christian in its origins, and that it has become by tradition a generic symbol of warmth and joy of the holiday season.

In my home, and many others, it is a Christian display because of how it's decorated. But in a public setting, it can be viewed differently.

It also could be decked out differently, with snowmen and candy canes instead of angels and the Christ child.

They should just call it an winter arboreal display. I mainly suggest that because I like the word arboreal, but also for the acronym WAD.

In all seriousness it is ridiculous. The put them in the capitol, in the White House, and the city of New York, with probably the most diverse population in the country, puts a giant one up.

"Associate provost Sarah Michalak decided against the trees. Michalak said she eliminated the displays after getting questions and complaints from employees and library users about the Christian display."

Complaints about Christmas trees? Good Lord.* Doug

No doubt Sarah is a Obama police state enforcer on campus. Reminds me of this famous quote in history from pre-war World War 2 Germany.......

" first they came for Xmas cards in the library, and the Elfs said nothing. Than they came for Xmas socks filled with candy and Santa Claus said nothing. And than they came for Sara Palin Xmas sled with the Raindeers, and McCain said nothing.
finally.......they came for the Dean Smith's Dome with the Xmas trees in the parking lot and he said nothing"

Don't people at Carolina have more worthwhile things to do than complain about Christmas trees?

Even if you were annoyed by them, I would think that would be a pretty low priority of things to get worked up about.

Don't people have better things to do than get worked up over a public university attempting to be more inclusive?

I don't understand why people take it as a personal offense when a retail store or public place acknowledges that there are other religions besides Christianity and other holidays besides Christmas. Why are you bothered by someone trying to be more inclusive? No one's coming into your home and taking YOUR Christmas tree or stomping on your manger display (if they are, they're probably teenage vandals, certainly not government drones sent to eradicate Christmas). It's just funny to me how much the majority takes their position of power for granted. The tiniest threat to that power sends them into an uproar.

Taking something away isn't being more inclusive.

And displaying a Christmas tree isn't exerting power. Removing it is.

You've come a long way, Doug. You've made the Savage proud.

"Taking something away isn't being more inclusive."

I agree with you that forcing them to take the tree down is dumb, but I disagree with this statement. If what was displayed was threatening or offensive to a group of people, a burning cross for example, then taking it away would be more inclusive. The point here is that a Christmas tree (or winter arboreal display) is pretty inoffensive and harmless. As a religious symbol it's pretty indirect. I don't even know what the religious meaning of the tree is supposed to be other than it's associated with Christmas. I say all this being against things like the Ten Commandments in courtrooms.

Will the librarian who made this decision come in for work on December 25th? After all, she might offend someone if she perceived to be taking a Christmas holiday.

I'm using the literal meaning of the word. Being more inclusive would be adding displays of meaning to more people. Taking away is being more exclusive (excluding any displays rather than excluding all but a supposedly Christian display).

In this case, if a Christmas tree is acceptable to, let's guess and 90-plus percent of the people, then how could it possible be more inclusive to add them to the small percentage who might be offended by a Christmas tree?

What you do is invite the other people to put their respective symbols alongside it. Not take the one down.

If viewpoints and political correctness are forced on people, then totalitarianism can come from either end of the political spectrum the far left or far right, as has been so aptly demonstrated by the ostensibly liberal Mitch Johnson / Dot Kearns GC shennanigans of the last few years.

Even using the literal meaning, more inclusive of symbols or things or whatever is not more inclusive of people. Having something on display could be less inclusive than not having it if there is an implication that only certain people are welcome.

An example could be if the library had a sign saying "all women are welcome." This would imply that men are not, and is certainly less inclusive than if there were no sign at all. You could also add a sign saying "all men welcome" but it seems it'd be best not to have the first sign at all. I think in general it's best not to have religious symbols in publicly-owned areas, but it's hard to put a Christmas tree (that is a WAD) in this category. It seems that in American culture for better or worse there are as many secular meanings and symbols for Christmas as religious ones.

This is a case of having a sign that says "most people welcome" and replacing it with a sign that says "most people not welcome." I don't get that as being more inclusive.

How does not having Christmas decorations send a signal that people aren't welcome? Does that mean I am being unwelcoming for not putting Christmas decorations in my apartment? Even if I didn't do it out of indifference to decorating rather than indifference to Christmas? And a sign saying "most people welcome" would be a bit weird and ominous. Especially if you knew you weren't one of the "most."

It saddens me that an associate provost bans decorated trees from her campus library. I remember back in the 60's when Chapel Hill students brought down the legislative Speaker Ban Law. That was a good thing. Ideas are important, banning anything needs a lot work. If I were a student 2008, I'd have the walkways lined with as many fake trees as I and others could afford from the Dollar Store and I would carry a tree to every classroom with me (small bookbag like)till winter break. Banning free or tree speech or association is contrary to acceptance and knowledge. Christine

What you say are do is your own business. One box store lost a microwave sell to me this week for selling holiday trees. So how I spend my money is my business.
We should stop Christmas Day, and let the folks in government WORK.

What is an "associate provost"?

Is she authorized to make those kinds of decisions?
Is the sacred Nike Swoosh Next.

Strange isn't it? the provost claims that a library contains information from all around the world and that we must not be judgmental-therefore any Christian symbol will not be allowed. No judgment here? Perhaps she would approve of sacrificing a chicken?

The Chancellor says

"the Library staff made the decision not to put up a Christmas tree this year"

Thats a lot different than:

"Associate provost Sarah Michalak decided against
the trees"

Which is it? Who pays for it? The staff or the school.