Atheist/Secular Left "Resents" Charitable Giving

Christmas Tree Controversy
December 15, 2004
By Molly Shen
BELLEVUE - You can't miss the Christmas tree in Bellevue City Hall.

"It's decorated with gold balls and gold ribbon," described a city worker.

They don't actually call it a Christmas tree.

"We call it the giving tree because it's meant as a season of giving and that's what it's for," explained Patrice Cole, who just made a donation.

The tree is adorned with requests for gifts from needy families.

It generates nearly $25,000 dollars worth of donations.

So, you might be surprised [no, not really] that Sidney Stock would look at this tree and say, "I resent it."

Sidney and Jennifer Stock are atheists.

Such an interesting choice of words "resent." I can almost, almost wrap my head around the notion that it makes them feel uncomfortable, or unwelcome, but their true colors come out when they say they resent it. What is it about religious principles - heck, not even religious principles - but just plain good principles (like charitable giving) that may be derived from a religious tradition, that these people resent so much?

They asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas which is a Christian holiday.

Stock says city hall should "Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed."

I agree there. It is impossible to display non-religious belief. Maybe you could do it in a modern art museum. Everyone could stare at an empty space and ooh and ahh over the beautiful symbol of atheism.

The courts already sided with the city on this one.

Barbara Ramey, spokesperson for the city explained. "Courts have ruled that Christmas trees are actually a secular symbol so given that, we are within the court precedents set on this issue," says Ramey.

The Stocks complained after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job.

If only you had a legal right to not feel out of place, or unwelcome, or uncomfortable, or offffennded. Why should we care so much about how you feel? That's something only you can control.

The couple's already gotten hate filled phone calls, but they speak out anyway, because they believe many people feel the way they do but stay silent.

"There are a lot of people who've come to this country, maybe have been here for years, who don't feel freedom to say anything," says Jennifer Stock. "So we feel we're saying it for those people. Not just for ourselves."

Again, they don't feel freedom to say anything, but they have that freedom nonetheless. But how they feel must be of some legal significance. Right?

The city doesn't plan to take the tree down and expects it will go up again next year.

They can also expect to hear from the Stocks.

Sidney Stock points out that to bring about change, you have to stir the pot.

"I try and be aware of injustice and inequality when it effects anybody or everybody," he says. "Certainly this is something that has been a problem for as long as I can remember."

How is this an injustice? How is this an inequality? How is it a problem? And how did the author of this article manage to miss the difference between "effect" and "affect?" The court precedents further point out that this kind of a public forum should be open to all viewpoints. So has Stock asked the city if he can post his own atheist display? If he has and they denied him, then there might be an inequality, but his naked feeling of resentment doesn't create a legal injustice or inequality. This malignant narcissism just drives me bonkers. I wish someone like this could just articulate for me what it is that's so wrong with this situation. (Note: see this post and the Rosen link.)