Sanctifying Christmas Trees

Some have complained recently about the presence of Christmas trees as “religious symbols” in the Houses. In response to this anguish over the existence of a tree with lights on it, several Harvard commentators have said that the Christmas tree has mostly become a secular item. Even where it is not purely secular, they say, it has no overtones specific to any one faith.

This secular argument is compelling when based on the history of Christmas. None of the complainers would be able to find any scriptural references to decorated trees being used to celebrate Jesus’ birth. The practice did not gain cultural appeal among Christians until the 16th century in Germany and the 19th in England and America (long after the coming of Christianity).

In a poem without any religious nature beyond the mention of the word “Christmas,” a legend little-commemorated outside of some European circles was suddenly made into a “jolly old elf” with the power to make some seethe with anti-exclusivist fervor. Since Santa Claus was not widely associated with Christmas in America until a bit over a century ago, it should give some people pause to hear that it is an integral part of Christianity. However, Pforzheimer House Committee President Teresa L. Bechtold ’02 believes that, regardless of the current secular nature of Santa Claus, past religious connotations should be enough to make Santa “exclusive.”

If past or original intent of a symbol is sufficient, then the gaily decorated tree is “exclusive” of all non-Pagans, as it comes from a pre-Christian Roman tradition (the Romans used green trees lit with candles in their winter Saturnalia festival). The simple fact that many of the stricter Christian sects ban Christmas trees (and Halloween and any other non-Christian assimilation) should be enough to prove this point. Most of the other things associated with Christmas can be traced to 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia—the yule log, carolers, the 12 days of Christmas, etc.—and all made reappearances across Europe in subsequent pre-Christian centuries.

If one wishes to argue that the Christmas tree is an exclusivist Christian symbol because the Church or a large number of the Church’s followers have associated it with a Christian festival—regardless of history or the masses of proclaimed non-Christians who exchange presents and have a tree on Dec. 25—there should also be protests against any Halloween parties (which even the name will tell you has been associated by the church with the subsequent All Saints’ Day). Similarly, the Star of David or the menorah seen in many houses has much more explicit religious overtones (the trees do not have crosses, at least), yet there do not seem to be protests—perhaps it is worse to be anti-Semitic.

If the school should be forced to take down anything which is deeply offensive to what Shira D. Kieval ’04 points out, in a recent Crimson article, is a very small minority, then it should expand this policy to things besides Christmas trees. The American flags widely displayed should be taken down, lest they offend our foreign students (a large minority) or any Jehovah’s Witnesses among us (before you argue that the flag is supported by our government, let me remind you that Christmas is, too). The rainbow flags which have occasionally appeared in a few dining halls should not have been placed there, as they offend the religious beliefs of those who, basing their opinions on the dictates of their religion, believe homosexuality to be wrong and do not want to be forced to support it.

In short, students should learn at least a little about what they are attacking before they attack it. As the Crimson staff argued in an editorial entitled “It’s Christmas, After All,” they should lighten up.

Marguerite K. Cauble ’03 is an Indian Studies concentrator in Mather House.