O Friendship Tree, O Friendship Tree

By Christian Hartsock

When they're not thinking up laughable euphemisms for the mythological "penumbra emanation" of an alleged entitlement to commit ruthless infanticide against helpless infants such as "a woman's right to choose," liberals are scratching their heads in a desperate effort to think up alternative names for those unidentified ornament-adorned objects that normal people tend to refer to as "Christmas trees." Some ingenious appellations have sprung up, including "giving trees," "paradise trees," "world trees," "friendship trees," or the most popular candidate, "holiday trees," while those who obstinately insist on calling them what they are are rightly deemed primitive and intolerant.

During Christmas season one year, a father was bewildered to find a watercolor painting his four-year-old son had done in school of a menorah and seven candles painted green, red and black representing Kwanzaa, yet there was no inclusion of a Christmas tree. When he inquired of his son as to its absence, his son replied, "We have the friendship tree." Puzzled, the father decided to take his son to school the next day only to find hallway bulletin boards adorned with menorahs and the words "Happy Hanukah," as well as green, red and black candles with letters announcing "The Miracle of Kwanzaa," but when he got to the end of a long hallway he found a pine tree on a table. After asking the principal of the school what it was, the principal replied, "That is our friendship tree." As any reasonable person would do, the father asked why it was not called a "Christmas tree," to which the principal responded, "Oh, we're trying to make sure we don't offend people."

Instances such as these are not uncommon. In Toledo, Ohio, Bowsher High School principal Larry Black accidentally announced that the school had erected a Christmas tree, only to swiftly correct himself by renaming it the "holiday tree." Meanwhile, in Boston, a Christian group had to complain after the city called its Christmas tree a "holiday tree." In Washington D.C., House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) declared that the tree set up on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol, having been labeled a "holiday tree," should be renamed the "Capitol Christmas tree."

After Indiana Law School dean Tony Tarr, who was always adorably excited when Christmas came, set up a Christmas tree in the atrium of the main building of the law school, some annoying liberal property law professor named Florence Wagman Roisman, as well as two annoying liberal students, demanded that the tree be taken down due to its "doubtful constitutionality."

Let's see here. Roisman, as most annoying liberals do, probably predicated her statement on the establishment clause of the First Amendment. To clarify, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." With a dose of common sense and clear thinking, one might make the logical observation that the tree is not an "establishment of religion" and that Indiana Law School is not "Congress." But what does she know? She's only a law professor.

It doesn't stop with Christmas trees. At Thomas Elementary School in Plano, Texas, at a "winter party" (formerly known as the "Christmas party"), students were encouraged to exchange goodie bags. Little Michaela Wade decided to include in her goodie bags a pencil with words reading, "Jesus Is the Reason For the Season." Jonathan Morgan, another student, put in his goodie bags a candy-cane-shaped pen with an attached card with text explaining the origin of the candy cane. To explain, legend has it that the candy cane was the creation of a Christian candy maker who wanted to make a form of candy in the shape of the letter "J" for "Jesus." In addition, the red color on the candy cane symbolized Christ's blood, while the white color symbolized Christ's purity. On account of the "religious viewpoint" of the gifts, both the pens and the pencils were confiscated from the students.

Let's return to the First Amendment. Directly following the establishment clause is what is known as the "free exercise clause," which, along with the preceding clause, states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (emphasis mine)." Inasmuch as it is the religious duty of Christians to share and teach about their faith with and to other people, it is safe to say that the school fascistically infringed on the students' rights to exercise their religion. This is one of the fascinating enigmas of liberals: They love the establishment clause (without even knowing what it means), but they hate what comes with it. And though Thomas Elementary was not Congress, and it was not making a law, the language in the free exercise clause clearly implied that Congress specifically could not infringe on this right because it was an untouchable right, or "inalienable" as Thomas Jefferson might put it; essential to the concept of "liberty."

So why do liberals harbor this instinctive compulsion to cry "Bah, Humbug" every time Christmas comes around? Why do liberals tremble at the sight of Christmas trees? Why do they hate the idea of small children humbly acknowledging the true meaning of Christmas? The answer is simple. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, and liberals hate the idea of people worshiping someone who is not one of them. They see themselves as being intellectually superior to everyone else, and thus harbor delusions of divine authority over mankind itself. This is why they feel at liberty to terminate pregnancies at their convenience. It is why they feel at liberty to decide whether Terri Schiavo lives or dies. It is why they feel at liberty to redefine marriage according to their own relativistic standards. It is why they feel they shouldn't be sentenced to death if they're convicted of murder. They feel this way because they are gods. Well at least this year we'll all be enjoying Christmas and the gods won't be.

© Christian Hartsock