There is a fight raging at our state Capitol, and it’s going to make all of us redefine our values and choose sides. It is an issue as old as our hallowed Constitution, an issue that has been adamantly and eloquently debated since the foundation of this great nation. It is the issue of separation of church and state… kind of.

This political slugfest will be waged as a result of a resolution sponsored by Michael Schoenfield, a legislative aide to Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids. The resolution in question proposes renaming a tree that stands in the Capitol, and is almost certain to deliver the most heated debate on the church-state issue since Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant went toe-to-toe over the Scopes Monkey Trail. Since 1985, the tree that stands in the Capitol from late November to early January has been called the “Holiday Tree.”

If the new resolution passes, however, it will henceforth be called the “Christmas Tree.” Proponents of the bill argue that there are already religious displays in the Capitol. According to officials there will be a menorah (or should we call it a holiday candelabra?) on display Dec. 4-13, a Baptist Church holiday sign (I’m not even sure what this would entail) Dec. 3-8 and an interfaith awareness display Dec. 10-14. The resolution is not without detractors. Co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Annie Laurie Gaylor, believes the proposed name is a flagrant violation of separation of church and state. In truth, she’s probably right, but is it really worth it?

I deeply believe in the separation of church and state, but we have to pick our battles. I don’t believe this resolution to be setting any sort of dangerous precedent. It simply seems to be superfluous legislation from a state Legislature which apparently sees no bigger problem in the state of Wisconsin than one improperly named tree.

It makes me think of the good old days when the U.S. Congress pigeon-holed a health-care bill to insult the French by renaming “french fries” “freedom fries” in the Congressional cafeteria—a move which no doubt hurt the French people and their proud culinary traditions.

This issue isn’t really about religion at all. Don’t be outraged as a person of faith or an atheist—be outraged as a person who pays taxes to fund such a ridiculous waste of time. Could this really be the paramount priority of the Wisconsin State Legislature?

Here is the real question. Why do we have to call it anything? It is a tree. If we have to call it something, let’s call it a “tree.” Or, “That tree that’s in the Capitol.” If necessary, I’m sure we could all put our heads together and think of something really great. May I suggest “Red-Herring?”

Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.