Editorial: Limit display to evergreen in rotunda at Capitol

This seems familiar.

The Washington state Department of General Administration adopted rules last week that limit seasonal displays in the Capitol in Olympia to a state-sponsored “holiday tree.” No religious displays, real or fanciful, nor anti-religious displays either. Just the official evergreen tree, deliberately nonsectarian by name: holiday tree.

That’s the way it was before 2005 when former state Rep. John Ahern, of Spokane, insisted on converting the annual nondenominational tree into an emphatically Christian totem.

The following year, Gov. Chris Gregoire and a group of rabbis joined to add a menorah in the Capitol rotunda. Then an Olympia real estate agent sued for the right to erect a Nativity scene there, too. And an atheist group demanded and got space for a statement deriding religion in general.

The anything-goes atmosphere became on open invitation to lampooners who began talking about such outright mockeries as a Kansas group’s Flying Spaghetti Monster and an Olympia man who wanted to erect a Festivus pole (ask a “Seinfeld” fan to explain).

In a more somber twist, an anti-gay church from Kansas asked for permission to put up a sign describing Santa Claus as a child molester and attributing economic collapse to “God’s hate.”

About the only thing this carnival achieved for Washington was to make it the subject of ridicule for nationwide commentators who feast on quirks and oddities. That’s not cool.

While it’s obvious that the popularity of evergreen trees in December grows out of the role they play in Christians’ celebration of the birth of Jesus, it’s also true that the so-called Christmas tree was an add-on that has nothing to do with the religious roots of the holiday. It’s also true – as many devout Christians routinely lament – that for many, many Americans the celebration of Christmas is a commercial exercise, not a religious one.

Christmas trees – or holiday trees, if you prefer – have become embedded in the American culture and hardly stand as a symbol that commands spiritual reverence. There are other icons for that.

So while a reasonable case can be made for displaying a state tree, based on broad cultural tradition, the state has learned from awkward experience that attempting to accommodate any and all expressions of religion on state premises is fraught with trouble.

The new rule, which is really the reinstatement of an old rule, may well be tested again. Rather than permit a repeat of the past four years’ farce, the state should stand its ground.