SPRINGFIELD -- Missouri State University administrators decided Thursday morning to put a Christmas tree back in the lobby of Strong Hall, along with other religious holiday symbols. 
A department head removed the 20-foot tree on Monday after a faculty member who is Jewish complained that it was insensitive to other religions.

   After learning about the complaint and the removal of the tree, administrators scheduled a meeting for Friday afternoon to discuss appropriate holiday decorations at the school. 
That meeting is now canceled.

   “We decided this is the right thing to do, and I am glad there was widespread agreement about it,” President Mike. Nietzel said in a news release.   “Missouri State is an institution at which many different religions are represented, and we try to be sensitive to the many views people hold.

   “After having had a chance to air this out a bit more and consider the various perspectives of our campus community, I am happy that the Christmas tree will be back up along with the many others that were already on campus."

    The tree was back in the lobby by 11 a.m. and university employees were decorating it.  University officials said in the news release that a menorah will be next to it "to represent the inclusiveness of the fall Holiday season.  Further, a display case will be created to provide a secure and educational display of holiday traditions.  The display cases on the second floor of Strong Hall will also be used in the future to provide educational information on holiday traditions during other seasons of the year."

   MSU administrators apparently believe courts have ruled Christmas trees are secular symbols if they do not bear religious decorations.  The department head who put the tree up said she didn't use any religious symbols on it. However, an attorney who studies legal religious issues believes the Supreme Court has ruled that a Christmas tree is inherently a symbol of a religious holiday, no matter how it's decorated.

The attorney, who spoke on background and not for attribution, believes the most important factor in deciding whether a Christmas tree is constitutional on public property is the context in which it is displayed. For instance, he said, the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that a Christmas tree was okay on public property because it was displayed with secular symbols of the holiday season, such as reindeer and Santa Claus. He said he couldn't understand how a menorah, a Jewish religious symbol, could be okay but not a Christian symbol on a Christmas tree.

 Editor's note:  After reading this report, Anita Staver, an attorney who is president of Liberty Counsel,
sent this message (Liberty Counsel supports religious freedoms and believe court decisions on “separation of church and state” are wrong.):

“I am amazed at the amount of misinformation the public is fed from numerous sources regarding the constitutionality of Christmas symbols and celebrations.  It is no wonder that government officials are confused.

“The attorney who was used as background for the story is mistaken about the 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving religious symbols, although he is correct in stating that context is important.  That case (Lynch
v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)) involved a question of the constitutionality of a nativity scene, not a Christmas tree.

“The issue, exactly as stated in the opinion was “whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits a municipality from including a crèche, or Nativity scene, in its annual Christmas display.”  This information is easily verifiable on oyez.org, a Supreme Court Media website that provides archives of opinions, summaries, oral arguments and other data. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1256/

“A few years later in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Court refused to declare unconstitutional a government display of a menorah was placed next to a much larger Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, although the menorah was clearly recognized as a religious symbol.  This ruling indicates that some religious decorations such as angels would also be permissible on a Christmas
tree along with secular symbols like snowflakes or reindeer.

“In fact, the university can even add a nativity scene to the display and still not run afoul of the Establishment Clause, although a nativity scene by itself was not allowed in the Allegheny case. Evidently, MSU’s administration still does not have accurate legal information.”