This is just my Blogger site. I update it from time to time by pasting articles from my official website.
If you're looking for my latest (and perhaps greatest), go to Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Balancing Liberty and Security with The Patriot Act
On Friday, December 16, 2005, despite increasing pressure from the White House and its allies, 47 Senators from both parties rejected a cloture motion to limit debate on legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act, which means that efforts to "fix" the Patriot Act can continue.
Many of the Senators talked about the need to protect ordinary Americans from the misuse of the broad powers of the Patriot Act. Both Democrats and Republicans pointed to evidence that the Patriot Act is being used to gather financial and Internet transaction records of Americans when there is no link between the records and suspected foreign terrorists. The lawmakers also said that they want to renew negotiations so that they can try to find a way to ensure that anti-terrorism efforts are not wasted on Americans who are not connected to suspected terrorists.
The most controversial government powers granted by the Patriot Act include the authorizing of law enforcement agencies to access, in secret, library and medical records, and other personal information during investigations into suspected terrorist activities. The law also allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps involving multiple telephone lines and to wiretap suspected terrorists who may be operating outside of the control of foreign agents or powers.
Opponents of renewing the Patriot Act argue that it is a threat to the civil liberties of the American people, while supporters say that the law is essential to protecting the American people from terrorists.
If the Patriot Act is not renewed, its powers will expire on December 31, 2005, but only for new investigations. After December 31, the Patriot Act will still apply to those who were under investigation before that date.
Lawmakers from both parties said that they did not want the Patriot Act to expire, noting that a temporary extension is possible while the debate with regard to the balance of national security with civil liberties continues. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada urged a three-month extension to allow time for a resolution. Thus far, Republican leaders in Congress and the White House have rejected such a move.
The cloture motion failed just a few hours after the New York Times revealed that President Bush had, without first obtaining permission from the courts, secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on people in the United States.
In his Saturday, December 17, 2005 radio address, Mr. Bush defended his decision to authorize the NSA to conduct the secret investigations and fought for the renewal of the Patriot Act, saying both had saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks.
The president said he has reauthorized the NSA eavesdropping program 30 times since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and that he intends to continue it, "for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."
Defending the Patriot Act, Mr. Bush said, "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."
Of the failed cloture motion, the president said, "That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act."
Noting the looming expiration of key provisions of the Patriot Act, Mr. Bush said, "The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th."
In a statement made after Mr. Bush's radio address, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who supported the original Patriot Act, said that the reauthorization of the Patriot Act was written in ways that fell short of protecting our civil liberties. "Fear mongering and false choices do little to advance either the security or liberty of Americans," Senator Leahy said, "Instead of playing partisan politics and setting up false attack ads, they should join in trying to improve the law."
Safe and Free?
Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy said, "Today’s vote is a beacon of hope for the continuing vitality of our Bill of Rights. As Congress continues its examination of the Patriot Act, it must add common sense protections to preserve our privacy. Americans from across the political spectrum insist that this law be reformed so America will both be safe and free."
Safe and free? Is that rational? Doesn't safe or free make more sense? Or is this concept of safety and freedom co-existing just another of the ACLU's idealistic notions?
Apparently not.
In a December 17, 2005 blog post entitled, Life Vs. Liberty, RealTeen of Stop the ACLU writes, "There’s a delicate balance between our National Security and our Civil Liberties, that must be preserved."
Clearly, the idea that America can be a free country that is also safe from terrorists is not exclusive to the ACLU and its supporters.
RealTeen valiantly attempts to explain this alleged balancing of national security with civil liberties:
Can there ever really be a practical balancing of national security and civil liberties? What sort of scale is it that measures this supposed delicate balance between freedom and safety? Who is, or should be, minding that scale?
In the same article quoted above, RealTeen asks an interesting question: "What’s more important- inconveniencing people as they walk into the subway, or saving lives?"
This question lead me to wonder if merely inconveniencing people with these small infractions against their civil liberties is really enough to stop terrorists who are willing to kill themselves in order to make a point.
Perhaps the mere illusion of having a balance between liberty and security is enough for most people to feel both safe and free. So we try to strike some sort of wishy-washy balance between security and freedom, hoping that a minimum of tyranny will provide a maximum of safety.
However, pragmatism dictates that if we want to be truly safe from terrorist attacks, then we must not have any concerns about civil liberties getting in the way of those efforts. Half-measures, special exceptions and other less-than-iron-clad policies make the fight against terrorism ineffective because they leave too many holes in the net that is supposed to be catching terrorists before they strike.
If terrorist enemies are so determined that they are willing to die, then they are more than adequately determined to find and exploit any holes that were intended to preserve some mythical balancing of civil liberties with public safety.
Then, logically speaking, what are we left with? A really tough choice between tyranny and fear because we cannot realistically have both.
Of course neither one of those options is terribly appealing to the masses who, in varying degrees, value their civil liberties about as much as they value their safety. Thus the cognitive dissonance that is symptomatic of all people, regardless of their political ideologies, who want to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too.
The Choices are Freedom or Safety. Decide.
Think about the choices. If we choose a policy of safety and tyranny, it cannot be realistically limited to preserve civil liberties. The many, very real threats to our national security cannot be stopped with mere inconveniences like pat-downs at football games and bag searches on subways because, to terrorists who are suicidally dedicated to their causes, such weak "security measures" are nothing but minor stumbling blocks that can be easily avoided.
If, however, we choose the policy of freedom and fear instead, we will have to live every day with the possibility of all those very real threats and dangers becoming extremely real, in-your-face catastrophes.
Since we're already in grave danger because we want to balance freedom with security instead of going all the way and closing all of the security holes that preserve our civil liberties, then we might as well just suck it up and scrap any and all anti-terrorism measures that threaten to curtail our civil liberties.
America is the "land of the free and the home of the brave" because we must be very brave to live in this free country. We must have the fortitude to risk the lesser threat of terrorism in order to stop the greater threat of tyranny. We have to have the courage to fight the scourge of tyranny whenever it threatens our freedom, which means rejecting the false sense of security provided by laws like the Patriot Act.
Many Americans have sacrificed their comfort and safety, and even their lives, for the sake of our civil liberties and the American people should be willing to do the same now, even in the face of very real danger.
Many of the Senators talked about the need to protect ordinary Americans from the misuse of the broad powers of the Patriot Act. Both Democrats and Republicans pointed to evidence that the Patriot Act is being used to gather financial and Internet transaction records of Americans when there is no link between the records and suspected foreign terrorists. The lawmakers also said that they want to renew negotiations so that they can try to find a way to ensure that anti-terrorism efforts are not wasted on Americans who are not connected to suspected terrorists.
The most controversial government powers granted by the Patriot Act include the authorizing of law enforcement agencies to access, in secret, library and medical records, and other personal information during investigations into suspected terrorist activities. The law also allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps involving multiple telephone lines and to wiretap suspected terrorists who may be operating outside of the control of foreign agents or powers.
Opponents of renewing the Patriot Act argue that it is a threat to the civil liberties of the American people, while supporters say that the law is essential to protecting the American people from terrorists.
If the Patriot Act is not renewed, its powers will expire on December 31, 2005, but only for new investigations. After December 31, the Patriot Act will still apply to those who were under investigation before that date.
Lawmakers from both parties said that they did not want the Patriot Act to expire, noting that a temporary extension is possible while the debate with regard to the balance of national security with civil liberties continues. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada urged a three-month extension to allow time for a resolution. Thus far, Republican leaders in Congress and the White House have rejected such a move.
The cloture motion failed just a few hours after the New York Times revealed that President Bush had, without first obtaining permission from the courts, secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on people in the United States.
In his Saturday, December 17, 2005 radio address, Mr. Bush defended his decision to authorize the NSA to conduct the secret investigations and fought for the renewal of the Patriot Act, saying both had saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks.
The president said he has reauthorized the NSA eavesdropping program 30 times since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and that he intends to continue it, "for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."
Defending the Patriot Act, Mr. Bush said, "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."
Of the failed cloture motion, the president said, "That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act."
Noting the looming expiration of key provisions of the Patriot Act, Mr. Bush said, "The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th."
In a statement made after Mr. Bush's radio address, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who supported the original Patriot Act, said that the reauthorization of the Patriot Act was written in ways that fell short of protecting our civil liberties. "Fear mongering and false choices do little to advance either the security or liberty of Americans," Senator Leahy said, "Instead of playing partisan politics and setting up false attack ads, they should join in trying to improve the law."
Safe and Free?
Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy said, "Today’s vote is a beacon of hope for the continuing vitality of our Bill of Rights. As Congress continues its examination of the Patriot Act, it must add common sense protections to preserve our privacy. Americans from across the political spectrum insist that this law be reformed so America will both be safe and free."
Safe and free? Is that rational? Doesn't safe or free make more sense? Or is this concept of safety and freedom co-existing just another of the ACLU's idealistic notions?
Apparently not.
In a December 17, 2005 blog post entitled, Life Vs. Liberty, RealTeen of Stop the ACLU writes, "There’s a delicate balance between our National Security and our Civil Liberties, that must be preserved."
Clearly, the idea that America can be a free country that is also safe from terrorists is not exclusive to the ACLU and its supporters.
RealTeen valiantly attempts to explain this alleged balancing of national security with civil liberties:
"Simply put, our Civil Liberties need to be upheld, but not at the expense of security. If someone can not handle a pat down at a football game, then do they care about the security of others? I would rather be searched and feel safe, than have to worry about a terrorist attack. In the wake of the London bombings, the law enforcement agencies decided to step in in New York and do bag searches, which the ACLU opposed. That was just an example of how Civil Liberties can be adjusted to meet the security needs of the time, without being destroyed."
Can there ever really be a practical balancing of national security and civil liberties? What sort of scale is it that measures this supposed delicate balance between freedom and safety? Who is, or should be, minding that scale?
In the same article quoted above, RealTeen asks an interesting question: "What’s more important- inconveniencing people as they walk into the subway, or saving lives?"
This question lead me to wonder if merely inconveniencing people with these small infractions against their civil liberties is really enough to stop terrorists who are willing to kill themselves in order to make a point.
Perhaps the mere illusion of having a balance between liberty and security is enough for most people to feel both safe and free. So we try to strike some sort of wishy-washy balance between security and freedom, hoping that a minimum of tyranny will provide a maximum of safety.
However, pragmatism dictates that if we want to be truly safe from terrorist attacks, then we must not have any concerns about civil liberties getting in the way of those efforts. Half-measures, special exceptions and other less-than-iron-clad policies make the fight against terrorism ineffective because they leave too many holes in the net that is supposed to be catching terrorists before they strike.
If terrorist enemies are so determined that they are willing to die, then they are more than adequately determined to find and exploit any holes that were intended to preserve some mythical balancing of civil liberties with public safety.
Then, logically speaking, what are we left with? A really tough choice between tyranny and fear because we cannot realistically have both.
Of course neither one of those options is terribly appealing to the masses who, in varying degrees, value their civil liberties about as much as they value their safety. Thus the cognitive dissonance that is symptomatic of all people, regardless of their political ideologies, who want to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too.
The Choices are Freedom or Safety. Decide.
Think about the choices. If we choose a policy of safety and tyranny, it cannot be realistically limited to preserve civil liberties. The many, very real threats to our national security cannot be stopped with mere inconveniences like pat-downs at football games and bag searches on subways because, to terrorists who are suicidally dedicated to their causes, such weak "security measures" are nothing but minor stumbling blocks that can be easily avoided.
If, however, we choose the policy of freedom and fear instead, we will have to live every day with the possibility of all those very real threats and dangers becoming extremely real, in-your-face catastrophes.
Since we're already in grave danger because we want to balance freedom with security instead of going all the way and closing all of the security holes that preserve our civil liberties, then we might as well just suck it up and scrap any and all anti-terrorism measures that threaten to curtail our civil liberties.
America is the "land of the free and the home of the brave" because we must be very brave to live in this free country. We must have the fortitude to risk the lesser threat of terrorism in order to stop the greater threat of tyranny. We have to have the courage to fight the scourge of tyranny whenever it threatens our freedom, which means rejecting the false sense of security provided by laws like the Patriot Act.
Many Americans have sacrificed their comfort and safety, and even their lives, for the sake of our civil liberties and the American people should be willing to do the same now, even in the face of very real danger.
Winter Solstice Evergreens and The History of the Christmas Tree
Historic Evergreens
In the Northern hemisphere, the shortest day and longest night of the year (falling sometime between December 20 and 23) is called the Winter solstice. When ancient peoples observed the air becoming colder, the days getting shorter and the deciduous trees, bushes, and crops dying or hibernating for the winter, many became afraid that the sun was disappearing and that the Earth would eventually freeze. They also noticed that some plants and trees remained green all year long and believed that such trees and plants had magical powers that allowed them to withstand the cold of winter.
Evergreen trees and other plants that stay green all year round have always carried a special meaning for the various peoples of the world. Long before the advent of Christianity, peoples of many ancient civilizations decorated their homes with pine, spruce, and fir trees. In many of these cultures, it was believed that evergreen boughs, hung over doors and windows, would fend off witches, ghosts, evil spirits, and diseases.
Ancient peoples who worshiped the sun as a god believed that winter came when the sun god became sick and weak. The celebration of the winter solstice marked the time when the sun god would begin to regain his strength and evergreens served as reminders of the coming spring when the land would be green again.
Not having evergreen trees, the ancient Egyptians filled their homes with green date palm leaves to celebrate that their god, Ra, who was depicted as having the sun in his crown, was beginning to recover from his illness. The palm leaves symbolized the triumph of life over death.
To mark the occasion when their farms and orchards would once again be green and fruitful, the early Romans honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, with a winter solstice feast called the Saturnalia. They decorated their homes and temples with evergreen boughs and lights and exchanged symbolic gifts; coins for prosperity, pastries for happiness, and lamps for lighting the journey of life.
In Great Britain, the woods priests of the ancient Celts, the Druids, used evergreens, holly and mistletoe as symbols of everlasting life during mysterious winter solstice rituals. They also placed evergreen boughs over their doors and windows to ward off evil spirits.
The Vikings of Scandinavia believed evergreens to be the special plant of their sun god, Balder. In the late Middle Ages, Germans and Scandinavians put evergreen trees inside their homes or just outside their doors to show their hope for the coming spring.
The modern Christmas tree, which is often mistakenly referred to as a "Pagan symbol," (the Pagans believed that cutting down whole evergreen trees was destructive to nature) evolved from all of these early superstitions, customs and traditions.
The Legendary Origins of the Christmas Tree
Many of our modern Christmas customs, songs and traditions came from Germany, such as illustrations of Santa Claus, Christmas markets, shaped gingerbreads, tinsel, glass ornaments, and of course, Christmas trees.
The tradition of decorating a tree in celebration of Christmas originated in 16th century Germany. Legend has it that it Martin Luther, the German theologian and reformer who influenced Lutheran and Protestant doctrines, was the first to decorate an evergreen tree with lighted candles.
It is said that one night while walking through the woods and composing a sermon, he was awestruck by the beauty of evergreens shimmering in the snow under the stars. When he got home, he wanted to share his story with his children, so he brought in a small evergreen tree and decorated it with candles, which he lit in honor of the birth of Christ.
Although the first actual written record of a Christmas tree in 1604 dates well after Martin Luther's death in 1564, this old story of the first Christmas tree is still widely believed and very popular.
Another Christmas tree legend, also from Germany and dating back to the 7th century, tells the story of St. Boniface, a monk from Devonshire who went to Germany to convert the German people to Christianity. It is said that when he found a group of Pagans worshiping an oak tree, he cut the oak down and a young evergreen began to grow from its roots. Taking this as a sign, St Boniface used the triangular shape of the fir tree to describe the Holy Trinity; God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. After that, the converts then revered the fir tree as God's tree, just as they had previously revered the oak.
Christmas Trees in Early American History
The Christmas tree tradition as we know it today was most likely brought to the United States by Hessian troops during the American Revolution. According to a legend, a celebration around a Christmas tree in Trenton, New Jersey helped to turn the tide for Colonial forces in 1776. Hessian mercenaries, apparently feeling homesick after seeing a candlelit evergreen tree in the snow, left their guard posts to engage in merrymaking, which gave General Washington the opportunity to attack their position and defeat them.
The first actual record of Christmas trees being on display in America dates back to the 1830s, although the Pennsylvania German settlements had put up community evergreens in winter as early as 1747. But Christmas trees were not widely accepted in America until some time later. As recently as the 1840s, many Americans still thought of decorated evergreens as Pagan symbols.
To the New England Puritans, Christmas was sacred. They condemned many customs associated with Christmas, such as the Yule log, holly, mistletoe, Christmas carols and Christmas trees, as "heathen traditions." The Puritans believed that any joyful expression desecrated the sacred event of the birth of Christ.
William Bradford, the pilgrim's second governor, tried to stamp out what he called the "Pagan mockery" of Christmas. In 1659, a law was enacted that made any observances of December 25, other than attending church services, illegal. Christmas "frivolity" was penalized and anyone, Puritan or not, caught hanging decorations or otherwise celebrating Christmas was fined 15 cents.
This joyless Christmas tradition of solemnity continued into the 19th century. Until 1870, Boston schools remained open on Christmas Day and students who stayed home could be expelled. As recently as 1851, Pastor Henry Schwan of Cleveland, Ohio nearly lost his job when he decorated a Christmas tree in his church and his parishioners condemned it as a "pagan practice."
The Modern American Christmas Tree
Christmas trees were first introduced in England by King George III's German Queen, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and by German merchants who lived in England. A few British families had Christmas trees but they were likely influenced by their German neighbors rather than the Royal Court. At the time, the German Monarchy was unpopular with the British public, so the Royal Court did not copy the Christmas tree, which is why they did not become widely fashionable in Britain.
In 1846, The Illustrated London News carried a sketch of Queen Victoria and her German Prince, Albert standing with their children around a Christmas tree. Unlike the previous Royal family, Queen Victoria was very popular with her subjects and whatever the trendsetting Royals did at Court quickly became stylish in Britain as well as in the fashion-conscious cliques of Eastern American society.
By the 1890s, the popularity of Christmas trees was on the rise around America. Whereas the Europeans used small trees, the Americans preferred their Christmas trees tall enough to reach the ceiling. Most decorations were homemade. Young women spent hours quilling stars and snowflakes and sewing little pouches to hold secret gifts and treats, such as sugared almonds. They strung garlands with brightly dyed popcorn, interspersed with with nuts and berries. Wooden hoops were used to hold candles until the advent of electricity, which made it possible for Christmas trees to be lit continuously -- and far more safely.
Silver tinsel, which tarnished easily, was invented in 1878. By the 1920s, however, it was made from lead because lead was cheaper and did not tarnish. Due to the danger of lead poisoning to children, lead tinsel was banned in the 1960s. Today's tinsel is made exclusively from plastic.
In 1851, when a Catskill farmer named Mark Carr took two ox sleds filled with evergreen trees to New York City and promptly sold them all, the Christmas tree market was born. In 1890, F.W. Woolworth brought glass Christmas tree ornaments from Germany to the United States. The Christmas tree was beginning to catch on.
Christmas trees began appearing in town squares across the nation and having a Christmas tree in the home would soon become an American tradition. In the year 1900, one in five American homes had a Christmas tree. By the year 1920, they had become nearly universal.
President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869) had the first Christmas tree in the White House in the 1850's. The National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony on the White House lawn was started by President Calvin Coolidge (1885-1933) in 1923.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, nurseries were unable to sell evergreen trees for landscaping, so they cut them for Christmas trees. Because they were more symmetrical than trees growing in the wild, cultivated trees became preferred and the impromptu Christmas tree farms of the depression-era eventually became full-fledged businesses.
Artificial Christmas trees were first marketed in 1885 when a thirty-three limb tree, priced at 50 cents, could be ordered from Sears, Roebuck and Company. They were produced by brush manufacturers that employed the same techniques used in making brushes. Bristles of animal hair or plastic were dyed pine-green and inserted between twisted wires to form branches in graduated sizes, each with a color-coded tag at the base. The customer assembled the tree by inserting the color-coded branches into a wooden pole that acted as the trunk.
To prevent deforestation, tabletop feather trees made of dyed goose feathers originated in Germany in the 19th century. The Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog sold the first feather trees in America in 1913.
Artificial trees are very popular in the United States where synthetic Christmas trees can be found in 70% of homes. They are considered more convenient and hygienic (especially for those with allergies), and if they are used a number of times, they are less expensive over the long term. In most of Europe, however, artificial trees are considered tacky.
In the 1950s and 60s, metallic trees with all the same shape and color ornaments became the rage. The trees were made of aluminum-coated paper, which posed a fire hazard when Christmas lights were placed directly on them, so they were instead lit by a spotlight with a motorized color wheel in front of it.
The late 1970s saw a return to classic Victorian nostalgia, which was a refreshing change from the "space age" Christmas trees of the previous decades. Green trees were once again in demand and manufacturers created replicas of antique-style German glass ornaments, real silver tinsel and pressed foil decorations.
Today's indoor artificial trees are often sold pre-strung with lights, which not only provide a consistent display of color and light, but also allow people to avoid the most unpleasant yearly task of untangling Christmas lights. Some pre-lit trees contain fiber optics, which are lighted by a single lamp at the base. Most fiber optic trees come with a rotating color wheel that creates a shimmering multicolored lighting effect.
Other modern Christmas tree gimmicks include talking or singing trees, trees that blow their own "snow" (Styrofoam beads) and inverted trees. Inverted Christmas trees were originally used in stores by merchants who wanted their customers to get a closer look at the ornaments and other decorations being sold. The idea caught on with some customers who thought that the inverted trees would allow larger presents to be placed underneath them.
The Multicultural Holiday Evergreen
Today, decorated evergreen trees are often the subject of political controversy. In recent years, as America has progressed toward greater religious tolerance and freedom, the governments of some cities and towns have declined to put up lighted and decorated evergreens because they fear that they might be in violation of the First Amendment. Other localities simply call their decorated evergreens "Holiday Trees" in order to be inclusive and respectful of their community's diversity.
Some Christians object to the idea of calling a decorated evergreen a "Holiday Tree," believing that such a generic name is marginalizing to the Christian faith. But as their history demonstrates, decorated evergreens, which pre-date Christianity by thousands of years, were never exclusively Christian. Rather, the idea of decorating an evergreen tree in December is an ancient, multicultural notion whose meaning is as diverse as the variety of Christmas/Holiday tree styles available in stores today.
In the Northern hemisphere, the shortest day and longest night of the year (falling sometime between December 20 and 23) is called the Winter solstice. When ancient peoples observed the air becoming colder, the days getting shorter and the deciduous trees, bushes, and crops dying or hibernating for the winter, many became afraid that the sun was disappearing and that the Earth would eventually freeze. They also noticed that some plants and trees remained green all year long and believed that such trees and plants had magical powers that allowed them to withstand the cold of winter.
Evergreen trees and other plants that stay green all year round have always carried a special meaning for the various peoples of the world. Long before the advent of Christianity, peoples of many ancient civilizations decorated their homes with pine, spruce, and fir trees. In many of these cultures, it was believed that evergreen boughs, hung over doors and windows, would fend off witches, ghosts, evil spirits, and diseases.
Ancient peoples who worshiped the sun as a god believed that winter came when the sun god became sick and weak. The celebration of the winter solstice marked the time when the sun god would begin to regain his strength and evergreens served as reminders of the coming spring when the land would be green again.
Not having evergreen trees, the ancient Egyptians filled their homes with green date palm leaves to celebrate that their god, Ra, who was depicted as having the sun in his crown, was beginning to recover from his illness. The palm leaves symbolized the triumph of life over death.
To mark the occasion when their farms and orchards would once again be green and fruitful, the early Romans honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, with a winter solstice feast called the Saturnalia. They decorated their homes and temples with evergreen boughs and lights and exchanged symbolic gifts; coins for prosperity, pastries for happiness, and lamps for lighting the journey of life.
In Great Britain, the woods priests of the ancient Celts, the Druids, used evergreens, holly and mistletoe as symbols of everlasting life during mysterious winter solstice rituals. They also placed evergreen boughs over their doors and windows to ward off evil spirits.
The Vikings of Scandinavia believed evergreens to be the special plant of their sun god, Balder. In the late Middle Ages, Germans and Scandinavians put evergreen trees inside their homes or just outside their doors to show their hope for the coming spring.
The modern Christmas tree, which is often mistakenly referred to as a "Pagan symbol," (the Pagans believed that cutting down whole evergreen trees was destructive to nature) evolved from all of these early superstitions, customs and traditions.
The Legendary Origins of the Christmas Tree
Many of our modern Christmas customs, songs and traditions came from Germany, such as illustrations of Santa Claus, Christmas markets, shaped gingerbreads, tinsel, glass ornaments, and of course, Christmas trees.
The tradition of decorating a tree in celebration of Christmas originated in 16th century Germany. Legend has it that it Martin Luther, the German theologian and reformer who influenced Lutheran and Protestant doctrines, was the first to decorate an evergreen tree with lighted candles.
It is said that one night while walking through the woods and composing a sermon, he was awestruck by the beauty of evergreens shimmering in the snow under the stars. When he got home, he wanted to share his story with his children, so he brought in a small evergreen tree and decorated it with candles, which he lit in honor of the birth of Christ.
Although the first actual written record of a Christmas tree in 1604 dates well after Martin Luther's death in 1564, this old story of the first Christmas tree is still widely believed and very popular.
Another Christmas tree legend, also from Germany and dating back to the 7th century, tells the story of St. Boniface, a monk from Devonshire who went to Germany to convert the German people to Christianity. It is said that when he found a group of Pagans worshiping an oak tree, he cut the oak down and a young evergreen began to grow from its roots. Taking this as a sign, St Boniface used the triangular shape of the fir tree to describe the Holy Trinity; God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. After that, the converts then revered the fir tree as God's tree, just as they had previously revered the oak.
Christmas Trees in Early American History
The Christmas tree tradition as we know it today was most likely brought to the United States by Hessian troops during the American Revolution. According to a legend, a celebration around a Christmas tree in Trenton, New Jersey helped to turn the tide for Colonial forces in 1776. Hessian mercenaries, apparently feeling homesick after seeing a candlelit evergreen tree in the snow, left their guard posts to engage in merrymaking, which gave General Washington the opportunity to attack their position and defeat them.
The first actual record of Christmas trees being on display in America dates back to the 1830s, although the Pennsylvania German settlements had put up community evergreens in winter as early as 1747. But Christmas trees were not widely accepted in America until some time later. As recently as the 1840s, many Americans still thought of decorated evergreens as Pagan symbols.
To the New England Puritans, Christmas was sacred. They condemned many customs associated with Christmas, such as the Yule log, holly, mistletoe, Christmas carols and Christmas trees, as "heathen traditions." The Puritans believed that any joyful expression desecrated the sacred event of the birth of Christ.
William Bradford, the pilgrim's second governor, tried to stamp out what he called the "Pagan mockery" of Christmas. In 1659, a law was enacted that made any observances of December 25, other than attending church services, illegal. Christmas "frivolity" was penalized and anyone, Puritan or not, caught hanging decorations or otherwise celebrating Christmas was fined 15 cents.
This joyless Christmas tradition of solemnity continued into the 19th century. Until 1870, Boston schools remained open on Christmas Day and students who stayed home could be expelled. As recently as 1851, Pastor Henry Schwan of Cleveland, Ohio nearly lost his job when he decorated a Christmas tree in his church and his parishioners condemned it as a "pagan practice."
The Modern American Christmas Tree
Christmas trees were first introduced in England by King George III's German Queen, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and by German merchants who lived in England. A few British families had Christmas trees but they were likely influenced by their German neighbors rather than the Royal Court. At the time, the German Monarchy was unpopular with the British public, so the Royal Court did not copy the Christmas tree, which is why they did not become widely fashionable in Britain.
In 1846, The Illustrated London News carried a sketch of Queen Victoria and her German Prince, Albert standing with their children around a Christmas tree. Unlike the previous Royal family, Queen Victoria was very popular with her subjects and whatever the trendsetting Royals did at Court quickly became stylish in Britain as well as in the fashion-conscious cliques of Eastern American society.
By the 1890s, the popularity of Christmas trees was on the rise around America. Whereas the Europeans used small trees, the Americans preferred their Christmas trees tall enough to reach the ceiling. Most decorations were homemade. Young women spent hours quilling stars and snowflakes and sewing little pouches to hold secret gifts and treats, such as sugared almonds. They strung garlands with brightly dyed popcorn, interspersed with with nuts and berries. Wooden hoops were used to hold candles until the advent of electricity, which made it possible for Christmas trees to be lit continuously -- and far more safely.
Silver tinsel, which tarnished easily, was invented in 1878. By the 1920s, however, it was made from lead because lead was cheaper and did not tarnish. Due to the danger of lead poisoning to children, lead tinsel was banned in the 1960s. Today's tinsel is made exclusively from plastic.
In 1851, when a Catskill farmer named Mark Carr took two ox sleds filled with evergreen trees to New York City and promptly sold them all, the Christmas tree market was born. In 1890, F.W. Woolworth brought glass Christmas tree ornaments from Germany to the United States. The Christmas tree was beginning to catch on.
Christmas trees began appearing in town squares across the nation and having a Christmas tree in the home would soon become an American tradition. In the year 1900, one in five American homes had a Christmas tree. By the year 1920, they had become nearly universal.
President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869) had the first Christmas tree in the White House in the 1850's. The National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony on the White House lawn was started by President Calvin Coolidge (1885-1933) in 1923.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, nurseries were unable to sell evergreen trees for landscaping, so they cut them for Christmas trees. Because they were more symmetrical than trees growing in the wild, cultivated trees became preferred and the impromptu Christmas tree farms of the depression-era eventually became full-fledged businesses.
Artificial Christmas trees were first marketed in 1885 when a thirty-three limb tree, priced at 50 cents, could be ordered from Sears, Roebuck and Company. They were produced by brush manufacturers that employed the same techniques used in making brushes. Bristles of animal hair or plastic were dyed pine-green and inserted between twisted wires to form branches in graduated sizes, each with a color-coded tag at the base. The customer assembled the tree by inserting the color-coded branches into a wooden pole that acted as the trunk.
To prevent deforestation, tabletop feather trees made of dyed goose feathers originated in Germany in the 19th century. The Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog sold the first feather trees in America in 1913.
Artificial trees are very popular in the United States where synthetic Christmas trees can be found in 70% of homes. They are considered more convenient and hygienic (especially for those with allergies), and if they are used a number of times, they are less expensive over the long term. In most of Europe, however, artificial trees are considered tacky.
In the 1950s and 60s, metallic trees with all the same shape and color ornaments became the rage. The trees were made of aluminum-coated paper, which posed a fire hazard when Christmas lights were placed directly on them, so they were instead lit by a spotlight with a motorized color wheel in front of it.
The late 1970s saw a return to classic Victorian nostalgia, which was a refreshing change from the "space age" Christmas trees of the previous decades. Green trees were once again in demand and manufacturers created replicas of antique-style German glass ornaments, real silver tinsel and pressed foil decorations.
Today's indoor artificial trees are often sold pre-strung with lights, which not only provide a consistent display of color and light, but also allow people to avoid the most unpleasant yearly task of untangling Christmas lights. Some pre-lit trees contain fiber optics, which are lighted by a single lamp at the base. Most fiber optic trees come with a rotating color wheel that creates a shimmering multicolored lighting effect.
Other modern Christmas tree gimmicks include talking or singing trees, trees that blow their own "snow" (Styrofoam beads) and inverted trees. Inverted Christmas trees were originally used in stores by merchants who wanted their customers to get a closer look at the ornaments and other decorations being sold. The idea caught on with some customers who thought that the inverted trees would allow larger presents to be placed underneath them.
The Multicultural Holiday Evergreen
Today, decorated evergreen trees are often the subject of political controversy. In recent years, as America has progressed toward greater religious tolerance and freedom, the governments of some cities and towns have declined to put up lighted and decorated evergreens because they fear that they might be in violation of the First Amendment. Other localities simply call their decorated evergreens "Holiday Trees" in order to be inclusive and respectful of their community's diversity.
Some Christians object to the idea of calling a decorated evergreen a "Holiday Tree," believing that such a generic name is marginalizing to the Christian faith. But as their history demonstrates, decorated evergreens, which pre-date Christianity by thousands of years, were never exclusively Christian. Rather, the idea of decorating an evergreen tree in December is an ancient, multicultural notion whose meaning is as diverse as the variety of Christmas/Holiday tree styles available in stores today.
Why I Love the ACLU in Spite of its Warts -- With Hugs and Kisses to the NRA
Principles are easy to maintain when we feel safe and secure, but they mean nothing when we cast them aside the moment some aspect of them makes us uncomfortable.
The ACLU is often misunderstood because of the odd bedfellows it has kept. When some people learn how the ACLU has stood up for the rights of NAMBLA and Neo-Nazis, they just don't get it. How could an organization that claims to be "our nation's guardian of liberty" champion for such horrible people? Why should anyone even care about the civil rights of pedophiles and hatemongers? Should people like that even be entitled to civil rights?
Some people criticize the ACLU's neutral stance with regard to our Second Amendment. They say that since the ACLU aims to conserve America's original civic values, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that they should protect and defend all of them.
While that position is somewhat difficult to defend in principle, it makes sense in actual practice because there exists a rather large and powerful organization that is devoted to the protection and defense of our Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) are "committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Since the NRA, which has 10 times as many members (4 million) as the ACLU (400,000), exclusively defends our right to keep and bear arms, there is no need for the ACLU to take on that fight, too. That there could be a tacit agreement between those two organizations is not beyond the pale of reasonable speculation -- not only within the realm of the loathsome practice of partisanship, but as a matter of pragmatism as well.
I am a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.
When the ACLU takes on unpopular and controversial causes, the limits of our American principles are tested and some people simply do not have the stomach for those tests because they are, quite understandably, afraid of the possible negative effects that "too much" freedom -- as if there is such a thing -- might have upon the bestial side of our (and perhaps their own) human nature.
But America is called the "land of the free and the home of the brave" because living in freedom requires an awesome amount of courage. We must have the fortitude to resist any temptation to curtail civil liberties because freedom, by its very definition, cannot be arbitrarily limited or rationalized away for the purpose of expediency or convenience.
Much to the consternation of civil authoritarians, the ACLU has, on many occasions, successfully argued that even the most vile and disgusting barely-human beings are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law, and that our First Amendment protects all speech1 -- not just popular speech.
The recognition of NAMBLA's and the Neo-Nazis' rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is a crucial test precisely because their respective messages are so repulsive. If the rights of the likes of NAMBLA and the Ne0-Nazis can be secured, recognized, guaranteed and protected, then we can rest assured that the forces of tyranny and oppression have been kept in check.
However, we must never falter when it comes to the protection and defense of our civil liberties, even when they are perceived as getting in the way of fighting our worst fears. No exceptions can be made when it comes to our civil and human rights because the only crimes to which a "zero tolerance" policy can be rationally and logically applied are tyranny and oppression.
There can be no prisoners taken in the fight against tyranny and oppression for they are the most heinous crimes of all, often committed by perpetrators whose reactionary intentions seem benevolent, noble and even necessary for the common good. Well-intentioned tyrants and oppressors play upon our worst fears and tempt us with a false sense of security that will supposedly protect us from the specter of lesser crimes.
The fights against child molestation and bigotry are indeed noble causes, but we must never forget that freedom is noblest cause of all. Sacrifices must be made for the cause of freedom and the most important sacrifice we make toward that cause is the lack of personal comfort that appears to come from the false sense of security that tyranny provides for the cowardly.
The ACLU is on the cutting edge of testing the limits of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and discovering that there really aren't many left. In the wake of the historic recognitions of our rights to privacy2, the expansion of freedom, as it was laid out by our Founders a little over 2 centuries ago, is becoming more important than quelling the anxieties of vainglorious cowards who are quite willing to sacrifice freedom for all of us just to fill their own selfish need for solace.
The ACLU is often misunderstood because of the odd bedfellows it has kept. When some people learn how the ACLU has stood up for the rights of NAMBLA and Neo-Nazis, they just don't get it. How could an organization that claims to be "our nation's guardian of liberty" champion for such horrible people? Why should anyone even care about the civil rights of pedophiles and hatemongers? Should people like that even be entitled to civil rights?
The ACLU and our "1st Freedom"
Some people criticize the ACLU's neutral stance with regard to our Second Amendment. They say that since the ACLU aims to conserve America's original civic values, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that they should protect and defend all of them.
While that position is somewhat difficult to defend in principle, it makes sense in actual practice because there exists a rather large and powerful organization that is devoted to the protection and defense of our Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) are "committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Since the NRA, which has 10 times as many members (4 million) as the ACLU (400,000), exclusively defends our right to keep and bear arms, there is no need for the ACLU to take on that fight, too. That there could be a tacit agreement between those two organizations is not beyond the pale of reasonable speculation -- not only within the realm of the loathsome practice of partisanship, but as a matter of pragmatism as well.
I am a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.
When the ACLU takes on unpopular and controversial causes, the limits of our American principles are tested and some people simply do not have the stomach for those tests because they are, quite understandably, afraid of the possible negative effects that "too much" freedom -- as if there is such a thing -- might have upon the bestial side of our (and perhaps their own) human nature.
But America is called the "land of the free and the home of the brave" because living in freedom requires an awesome amount of courage. We must have the fortitude to resist any temptation to curtail civil liberties because freedom, by its very definition, cannot be arbitrarily limited or rationalized away for the purpose of expediency or convenience.
Much to the consternation of civil authoritarians, the ACLU has, on many occasions, successfully argued that even the most vile and disgusting barely-human beings are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law, and that our First Amendment protects all speech1 -- not just popular speech.
The recognition of NAMBLA's and the Neo-Nazis' rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is a crucial test precisely because their respective messages are so repulsive. If the rights of the likes of NAMBLA and the Ne0-Nazis can be secured, recognized, guaranteed and protected, then we can rest assured that the forces of tyranny and oppression have been kept in check.
However, we must never falter when it comes to the protection and defense of our civil liberties, even when they are perceived as getting in the way of fighting our worst fears. No exceptions can be made when it comes to our civil and human rights because the only crimes to which a "zero tolerance" policy can be rationally and logically applied are tyranny and oppression.
There can be no prisoners taken in the fight against tyranny and oppression for they are the most heinous crimes of all, often committed by perpetrators whose reactionary intentions seem benevolent, noble and even necessary for the common good. Well-intentioned tyrants and oppressors play upon our worst fears and tempt us with a false sense of security that will supposedly protect us from the specter of lesser crimes.
The fights against child molestation and bigotry are indeed noble causes, but we must never forget that freedom is noblest cause of all. Sacrifices must be made for the cause of freedom and the most important sacrifice we make toward that cause is the lack of personal comfort that appears to come from the false sense of security that tyranny provides for the cowardly.
The ACLU is on the cutting edge of testing the limits of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and discovering that there really aren't many left. In the wake of the historic recognitions of our rights to privacy2, the expansion of freedom, as it was laid out by our Founders a little over 2 centuries ago, is becoming more important than quelling the anxieties of vainglorious cowards who are quite willing to sacrifice freedom for all of us just to fill their own selfish need for solace.
1 Except for the sort of speech that causes civil unrest that could lead to injury, such as the ubiquitous example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
2 Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Almost forgot the wink to Stop The ACLU
2 Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Almost forgot the wink to Stop The ACLU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
