Anti-Christmas Globalists Ban Christmas Trees

European scientists and U.N. bureaucrats are now, in another slap at Christianity and Christmas, banning Christmas trees from the Copenhagen Global Climate Summit. The summit, being attended by Obama and other dignitaries, has shunned the traditional look of Christmas trees because as Denmark Foreign Ministry official Svend Olling said: “”We have to remember that this is a U.N. conference and, as the center then becomes U.N. territory, there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the U.N. wishes to maintain neutrality…”

Ironically, the fir trees that were originally planned to be at the summit trap and bind CO2 to prevent ‘global warming’. This shows the level that Europe and our leaders have stooped to. They go to a ‘climate change’ summit over the objections of critics of warming, yet indulging the morons that think we should avoid Christmas trees to ‘remain neutral.’

Yet another example of political correctness run amok. Europe has long been PC capital of the world with Christians being silenced whereas Muslim minorities are protected. This is another thumb in the eye of traditionalists that don’t mind the Christmas tree being displayed. While I don’t think it is malicious or necessarily intolerant, it is definitely overkill when it comes to inclusiveness. The U.N. should come up with better ways to waste American funds than banning Christmas trees and spending billions and trillions in researching and combating a fictional problem.

27 Responses to Anti-Christmas Globalists Ban Christmas Trees

  1. twin headboards…

    […]Anti-Christmas Globalists Ban Christmas Trees « An Informed Blog[…]…

  2. Zero says:

    Wow, can we say overkill? How does the removal of Christmas decorations from a U.N. Summit an example of you turning over any of your liberties? Re-read what I said, “are they telling you you can’t have a christmas tree? of course not.” I make the point that they are not doing anything of the sort of “banning christmas trees” all they have done is remove them from a U.N. Summit.

    Actually, Roman law is the basis for most European law. Since the rediscovery of Roman law texts during the middle ages, Roman law became the presiding factor. Then, after the Norman conquest of England, Norman and Islamic law concepts were introduced into the law systems. The other influential codes of law include the Napoleonic code and the Burgerliches Gesetzbuch. In fact Christianity itself didn’t have that much influence on law. Therefore your argument about “Christianity being the basis for all European law” is just ludicrous.

    Why do you believe Christians are so entitled to world-wide recognition and renown above all other religions? Why does there HAVE to be a Christmas decoration at an international summit that HAPPENS to occur near Xmas time?

    And as for the “former symbolism”, did you know that when the puritans first came over from England, they banned Xmas Trees because they believed they were too pagan? In addition, Yule-tide greetings? That’s pagan too. Mistletoe? Pagan. Giving gifts? Pagan. Hmmm….so much stock in the symbols, yet without knowing full well what they all mean.

    • Look here, I read perfectly well what you said about them not dictating to me what I can or can not do. I am stating a fact. Regardless of how many American liberties Obama is willing to turn over to the U.N. or international law, Americans will not accept it.

      Mosaic Law is the basis for much of America and European law. The ideas of Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, etc. was first put into law by Moses, long before the Romans even existed.

      I never said that Christians are entitled to worldwide recognition. However, the fact that they are the largest religious group in the world should have some stock no? I also never said that the U.N. has to put them up. What I said was “Anti-Christmas Globalists Ban Christmas Trees”. I said nothing about banning all trees or anything of the sort.

      I know what the symbols mean and have known. Don’t act condescending to me. Did I mention anything at ALL about mistletoe or yuletide greetings? The giving gifts has come to signify the gift of Christ being born to save us from our sins. The paganism of the past has no meaning when the symbols today signify something totally different to all but a small minority.

      • Zero says:

        But how does that fact about liberties have anything to do with this discussion? It doesn’t.

        A few moral constructs do not form the basis of all law by any means. Yes, they are incorporated into the law, but they aren’t the basis of it.

        The fact that you are so upset that they did not put Christmas trees up is why it seems like you insist Christianity get recognition over other religions at the summit. Why are the U.N. delegates who decided that Christmas trees were not appropriate for a neutral summit automatically “Anti-Christmas”? They can’t just be trying to keep a neutral setting? You said that you “never said the U.N. has to put them up,” however because they decided not to they are “Anti-Christmas”. Please, explain this.

        I’m not being condescending to you, it is rare to find someone who does know the pagan origins of all the symbols and therefore I don’t assume. The pagan symbols that are used for Christmas still pretty much signify the exact same things they always signified, just slightly modified to fit the dogma of Christianity rather than paganisitc beliefs. Therefore the paganism has a large meaning in the amount of stock that some people put into these symbols that really have been hijacked by Christianity but in reality have no real relation to the holiday except for Tradition.

        Once again, all this seems like is the U.N. decided to be neutral so you immediately call them “Anti-Christmas” and think they are attacking Christianity simply because they aren’t going to have Christmas trees at an international, non-religious summit. The fact that they are the largest religious group still doesn’t make Christianity any more important than any other religion, sorry.

      • 1. The reason I am complaining is because they were offered fir trees by a sponsor as a gift. Yet they refused. The trees didn’t have to be decorated or even named Christmas trees. The PC people at the UN just decided that it would look like supporting Christianity rather than being neutral or non-partisan. The only religion they want in the summit is there own one of man-made global warming.

        2. Like I said, the thought that goes behind something like symbolism has a lot to do with its current meaning. The current impression of Christmas trees is that they celebrate Christmas, not the pagan holiday or the winter solstice or anything like it. To a pagan, the tree probably has pagan undertones. To everyone else, the tree means a celebration of Christmas. Whether you say that it is modified or not, most people recognize the tree as what it currently stands for.

      • Zero says:

        1) You made no mention of this “gift” in the original post. Also, the gift was to be given as decoration. They decided that they would rather be neutral. I see no problem with this. As far as calling global warming it’s own religion, it would seem the difference between religion and global warming is a scientific basis. In response to the inevitable comment about Climategate, the stupid actions of a couple scientists at a single research center has no bearing of refuting any of the other evidence of global warming that exists. Therefore to assume that Climategate “definitively proves that global warming is false”, is fallacious. At best it calls into question research from one specific center, and articles in a single journal.

        2) The reason why the tree is symbolic of Christmas is because very few people actually know of the pagan origins of it. Tell me, in Christianity what is the symbolism behind the Christmas tree? Why is it used? What does it mean?

      • 1. The ‘stupid actions’ of a few scientists calls into question the validity of other data ‘showing’ global warming as true. It does so because it shows the great worth that proving global warming has to scientists. Grants, loans, power, prestige, the whole deal is based on showing the climate change is real and that we need costly endeavors to slow it or turn it around. Trees such as fir trees do an excellent job of trapping CO2 without any need of costly and economy retarding government restrictions. Also, the U.S. is nearly all the way to the Kyoto Accords target emissions without ANY government mandated requirements. It also calls into question the integrity of scientists supporting global warming because of the other instances of silencing critics.

        2. The symbolism behind the tree in Christianity is that the branches pointing up are pointing toward Christ who sits at the right hand of God the Father. The fir tree is an evergreen–it does not die or fade away or lose its needles in the winter. In this sense it has come to represent the immortality of the resurrected Christ. The lights also have meaning, originally candles lit the Christmas tree. And as many of us know, the candle provides light and warmth as it consumes its own substance, the wax. So Jesus also gave of his own substance–his life–so that we might find divine light. The gift giving is symbolic of the gift of life that God gave us through the birth, and eventually the death, of His own Son.

  3. Zero says:

    But I’m not. Because from what I can tell by what you’re saying, if someone in the community said that the decorations were offensive and the town took the decorations down. That you’d be against that. Or would you?

    • I am saying that if someone complains, the town has to listen to the complaint. If it is reasonable, the town should put up whatever decorations the opposing side wants in a different area. I don’t support something like what happened in Washington state, where a nativity scene was placed beside a sign saying ‘there is no god’ or something like that. The number of people in that community wanting a nativity scene vs. those wanting the sign was probably in the area of 12-1. If the sign had to be up, it should be removed a hundred feet or so from the nativity scene because in America, majority rules. That is how democracy works and has worked for centuries. They should take a poll of the town and see what the popular demand is.

      • Zero says:

        But that’s the problem in this case. There is no majority rules. If someone wants to put up decorations for their religious holiday, and the town says no for whatever reason but has decorations for another religion’s holiday, that is wrong. If there is a nativity scene on public property, and they refuse to put up Chanukkah decorations for ANY reason, then the nativity scene should not be allowed to stay. That is a show of preference to Christianity over Judaism.

        Also, America doesn’t work by Majority rules. If it did, we’d have Health Care Reform already. Democracy doesn’t work purely by majority rules.

      • America wants health reform. Americans do NOT want the kind of reform that democrats are shoving down our throats. Take a look at the polls. Now, more than half do not want it and only about 36% actually want the bill.

      • Zero says:

        Way to change the subject. I merely used healthcare as an example due to the fact of 42 senators preventing 58 senators from passing the healthcare bill shows that the US is not simply run by majority rules.

        Please do not shy away from the discussion topic. We are discussing the place that religious decorations play on public property not the pros and cons of healthcare.

        I reiterate my previous point:
        If a town unanimously agrees to have a nativity scene on public property, then that is one thing. However if that public display offends any member of the town, they have the right to either request the town put up the decorations of their religion also, or that the town take down the nativity scene. Just because “the majority of the town” agrees there should be Christian decorations does not mean that it is alright to trump the Constitutional rights of any individual.

        This is the reason most public displays are non-denominational. To prevent members of the public from being offended and therefore raising issue with the town. If the town refuses to put up decorations for another religion because there is “not enough support” for it but keeps the Christian decorations, then they are showing preference for Christianity over the other religion which is illegal.

      • Therefore, in towns where there is a nativity scene on private property, no one has complained lest the scene be long removed. My point stands that a town has a right to display Christmas decorations without displaying other decorations. Also, it is you who strayed from the topic which was the U.N. effectively banning Christmas trees.

      • Zero says:

        Private property is not public property. The state cannot show religious preference, private property is perfectly allowed.

        As for straying from the topic, it is a little facetious to say the U.N. is “effectively banning Christmas trees” when all they did was decide there would be no Christmas trees at a U.N. Summit. In the interests of neutrality this makes sense. Are they telling you you can’t have a Christmas tree? Of course not. I honestly don’t see how there is any problem whatsoever that a U.N. summit decided to not show any religious preference.

        Would you be this upset if they called them Holiday Trees?

        Even better, why are you so upset over something that is originally a pagan symbol of the winter solstice?

      • The U.N. is effectively banning Christmas trees from that summit. If they did tell me I couldn’t have a Christmas tree I would tell them they can take my tree when there is no second amendment. I am not turning over ANY of my liberties to ‘international law’ whether it’s about religion, speech or gun rights.

        Yes I would be upset if they called them Holiday Trees. That is still removing the religion of Christianity from the decorations. Christianity is the basis for all European law, whether they admit it or not.

        The Christmas tree has been adopted by Christians as a symbol of the birth of the Christ Child. It’s former symbolism has no relevance to anyone except neo-pagans.

  4. Zero says:

    You are a little backwards. The separation of church and state is to ensure that the state is not controlled by the church. Obviously a state building that displays only the decorations of one religion, can be said to be preferring one religion over the other. Public property should have no religious preference.

    You are correct, the town is not obligated to put up Ramadan decorations or to put up Chanukkiahs, (a common mistake. The symbol for Chanukkah is the Chanukkiah which has 9 branches. The menorah is symbolic of the days of the week instead and only has 7 branches.) as such they are not obligated to put up Christmas decorations either. It’s an all or nothing deal. To only put up the decorations of a single religion is to show preference to that religion. Therefore the government errs on the side of safety and puts up no decorations, lest they be accused of religious preference.

    • You my friend are backwards, the town, if only Christians say they want a nativity scene and no one else states their wants, the town is perfectly within their rights to put up only a nativity scene. Also, the constitution provides that the state (here meaning government in general) is not to show preference for one religion at the detriment of the others, however, putting a nativity scene up does not mean they are showing preference to that religion, it means they are listening to the wants of their constituents.

      Ah, I thank you for your correction of my mistaking menorahs and channukkiahs. However, it is not an all or nothing proposal. If a town has vocal Christians wanting nativity scenes and no one else complains, the town is perfectly able to put up nativity scenes alone.

      • Zero says:

        However, if any constituent is offended by this, they have the right to either request the removal of the scene or the addition of the decorations of their own religion. Both of which would be met with outcry, yet if the state does not comply with the request they would be showing preference at the detriment of others and therefore it would be illegal. Most governments prefer to err on the side of caution and not be stuck in the situation of either removing decorations or having to be met with outcry for adding Ramadan decorations next to a nativity scene. It is not wrong to do this. What is wrong is to demand that the decorations MUST be put up regardless of what others in the town may thing.

        If a completely and utterly Christian town decides to put up a nativity scene, thats fine. I don’t object to it. If it turns out the town is not completely Christian and someone complains, then the town MUST respond to the complaint. If they are offended and it must be removed so be it. If they would be satisfied simply by the decorations of their own religion being added, that is fine too. As long as the government complies.

      • That is exactly what I am saying. The town has the right to put up only one kind of decorations if that is what the people want. If there is a massive outcry, than things must be done to gain the approval of the populace. You are simply reinforcing what I have already said.

  5. Zero says:

    If you notice I did not disagree with your argument about the fact that the summit for climate change itself has a huge carbon footprint.

    Considering that most Christmas trees have been cut down and are no longer really ‘living’ the amount of CO2 they’d remove is negligible at best.

    You are one of the few that would not mind other holidays then. I’ve seen parents in an uproar because a school had a class explaining about the pagan origins of symbolism used in many major religions. I’ve seen them throw a fit because during some other religion’s holiday there were decorations up. These people are only fighting for religious expression in a school when it benefits their own religion, anything else should not be allowed. These are the people that amuse me with their hypocrisy. That is all I was saying.

    If they put up decorations for EVERY religion that POSSIBLY has a holiday at this time of year for the summit, then I would not argue. Though personally I agree with the decision due to the fact that it is very hard to ensure you do not offend anyone. Offending someone at a U.N. event is detrimental to the purpose of the event.

    The U.N. is committed to the rights of all individuals to openly express their religion, but the U.N. itself should not express any one religion over others. In that respect, this was a good decision.

    • Yes, it would have more beneficial to the planet, if the people in charge even believe the scenario, if they would have video-conferenced or some other means of meeting without actually leaving such a large amount of carbon into the air. Since fiber cables stretch all around the world and the technology is now in place for massive face to face communication without leaving the country, this would have been perfectly feasible.

      The idea of the trees being there is not just to remove the CO2 but to have them there as an example that those same trees and millions like them already do the job that governments are spending trillions on trying to do themselves. Without the trees, there is no reminder that God has naturally placed defenses on the earth for the removal and negation of burgeoning industrialized nations carbon emissions.

      No, you see I do not like Ramadan or Kwanzaa or other holidays. What I don’t mind is if they decided to be all inclusive, since the U.N. has no founding religion or religious charter, and include other symbols as well. The reason Christians oppose having such symbols in the United States is that this nation was founded by a people of Christian belief. Our Pilgrims came hear to be able to practice their Christian faith without the oppression of the King of England who wanted to Anglicanize the entirety of England. Therefore many Christians, myself included believe that when decorations are put up for the Christmas holiday season, creches and manger scenes are entirely appropriate and should be prominent since most people in this country are, and identify themselves as, Christians.

      • Zero says:

        Yes they came here to practice their religious freedom without having it dictated by the government. So to honor their bravery you want to have the government impose religious decorations upon the people? How does that make sense?

        There is a separation of church and state. The constitution itself declares that the government cannot show preference of one religion over any other. Therefore for any government body in the US to put up Christmas decorations and not decorations of any other religion would be showing preference to Christianity over other religions.

        If it is so important that you have Christmas decorations then you should not oppose decorations for all religions. If you insist only on Christmas decorations and no other religion can show anything, then you’re just trying to declare that your beliefs are more important than someone who is not Christian.

      • I do not want the government to impose anything upon the people. Schools, town halls etc are ALL local buildings, run locally. If the people in that town overwhelmingly support putting up nativity scenes and creches, let them do so. Groups like Freedom From Religion and the ACLU overstep their boundaries when they declare that ANY government building cannot put anything related to Christianity up.

        Again, that is the U.S. constitution, however, local or state town squares have their own rules and should allow the local people to choose.

      • Zero says:

        The US constitution makes no distinction between Federal and State government when it comes to religious freedom, no government in the US is allowed to show preference to any religion. That includes local and state town squares. They are perfectly correct that no government building can put anything related to any religion up, without putting up decorations for ALL religions.

        I think it is perfectly fine the way it is where private property can put up what they like but government property should not. You want a nativity scene? Put it up in your own yard, help your church set it up in their yard. But if I go to the town square for a walk, I don’t want to be forced to have it.

      • You are completely wrong. If there are no Muslims in a certain town, the town is not obligated to put up Ramadan decorations. If there are no Jews they are not obligated to put up Menorahs etc. The government, by putting up certain decorations, is not stating a preference for a certain religion, but is serving the people that wish for there to be those holiday symbols.

        Your idea that the first amendment provides freedom from religion is entirely false. The separation between church and state is to make sure that the church is not controlled by the state rather than making sure the state has no religious symbols on state property.

  6. Zero says:

    It amuses me when I read about people getting upset about the banning of Christmas decorations from public and neutral functions. What is so important about the pagan decorations of Christmas?

    These are the same people who would be in an uproar if instead all religions were allowed to express themselves. If decorations were put up for holidays of other religions such as Ramadan, Sam Hain, Kwanza, Yule, etc. they would go on a rampage. (I’m saying if they allowed Christmas decorations but also allowed all of these.)

    Oh, and a small nitpick. Wouldn’t banning Christmas trees from the summit SAVE money? 🙂 since you’re so upset on the spending….

    • It is important because of the stupidity of the people organizing the summit. 1. The trees themselves are real trees therefore they contribute to the removal of CO2 from the air, something that such planners are surely aware of since even the most minute amount of scientific knowledge teaches such, 2. Bringing the trees in, regardless of whether they want to celebrate Christmas or not, would be putting the trees as an example of the CO2 trapping initiative to ‘save the planet’.

      I actually would not mind if all the other holidays were represented. If that is what it takes, fine. But removing Christmas trees simply to pacify the European atheist scientists is nonsense and counterproductive to open dialogue. I thought that the U.N. was committed to the rights of all individuals to openly express their religion. Or is that just for those whose religion is no religion?

      Also, the trees would probably cost somewhere in the thousands of dollars for all of them. Considering the massive amount of money being spent on a fraud, they could surely afford to put up some decorations? I wish they would scrap the whole wasteful endeavor.

      PS: How exactly does driving 1,200+ limos, 100+ private jets etc. help the whole ‘climate change’ *cough global warming cough* thing in the first place?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: