Is Santa silly?

I'm writing this as someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas in either a religious or cultural sense. From a young age I was told that Santa doesn't exist and is just a silly hoax that parents play on their kids. It never affected me in any bad way and neither was I expecting to find wrapped presents mysteriously appear on the morning of the 25th day of December. If anybody in my family received a Christmas gift then it was usually opened on the same day. A downside to this is that even from the age of 4 or 5 I went round telling kids at school "Father Christmas isn't real, it's all made up, your parents buy Christmas presents from the shops" which often resulted in me getting into trouble whenever they got upset. I once had to report to the head teacher after completely reducing a classmate to tears.

Is the concept of Santa a silly nonsense or is it part of the joys of childhood? Do you tell your own children the truth or would you prefer to go along with the cultural norm? Is pleasing one's classmates more important than knowing the truth? What about children at school who follow different religions so do not celebrate Christmas - where do they fit in?

  • longman said:

    Who knows where we'll be by New Year. Probably it will be down to the merits of being a Jedi warrior.

    Tongue Out

    Jedism is now an accepted religion with thousands of followers !!! And it all came from fiction, funnily enough it means theres just as much truth in Jedism as there is any other religion as they are all works of fiction as well, although based on facts that have been tinkered with for thousands of years. I can't imagine Jedism getting taught in schools !

  • I confess I got my predictions badly wrong. Back at posting 128 I predicted 1000 postings on "Santa is Silly" by Christmas.

    While I was way out on my predictions it may be a relief to most of you that we only got another 60, and Santa fell out of the discussion pages back.

    Who knows where we'll be by New Year. Probably it will be down to the merits of being a Jedi warrior.

  • Paull said:
    Maybe not these days, but when I went to school I was taught that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5000 people with 3 loaves and 5 fish etc, all of which are scientifically impossible. Faith schools also exist and they often have a strict regime to drum a certain religion into vulnerable childrens heads.

    Was that in the 'bad old days' before 1988 when primary schools could effectively teach what they wanted and kids had to comply with the teacher's whims?

    My mother attended a (secular?) primary school during the 1970s and had to sing hymns in assembly and pray or else have her knuckles caned, but there we no lessons teaching things about religions other than Christianity and she suspects that the teachers had very little knowledge of them.

  • ...even more off topic now Foot in Mouth Santa really does seem innocuous by comparison! Money Mouth

  • You can call any empire barbaric and find atrocities, was the Roman Empire great ? What about Genghis Khan ? The strongest empire is the one that expands the most - this is nature. This struggle and expansion is vital to development of any species through the passing on of the strongest genes. Without struggle nothing would need to evolve.

    Stags fight each other, prides of lions, nests of ants and on and on and on.

    You cannot stop this fighting through reason, if two stags could become friends and just decide to take turns on the females then it may be a instant solution to peace, but long term the stags genes will become weaker.

  • As with empire Alex - would you consider those societies that own most of the land as stronger or weaker ? Nature teaches us everything. The strong colony of bees is the colonly that expands, yes it's often due to the detriment of other colonies but that's nature. To be a head of an empire and reign over the shrinking of that empire means to weaken that empire.

  • Alex R - mod said:

    This is nonsense. I clearly distinguished between teaching about a religion and teaching that a religion is true. I hope you can tell the difference between "X is a fact" and "it is a fact that members of religion Y believe X".

    Yes you did distinguish it Alex, but it's not distinguished in all schools, eg faith schools where is is taught as fact.

  • Paull said:

    "Now just hold on a minute." etc..you completely misunderstand this and it is based on facts.

    Britain is being taken over by non British people, and I was not talking about population or race etc. A huge proportion of British assets are non British owned, in fact a huge proportion of our entire infrastructure is foreign owned including power, water, transport and banking, You may think it doesn't matter who owns them but as with most businesses they want to make short term gains rather than care about long term stability, so for any country to sell off most of their infrastructure puts the future of that country in jeopardy. It means British people have not even got control of their own country. surely you can see why this is a problem ?

    You didn't mention any of those things, and you did mention the Empire, in which Britain quite literally took over lots of other countries. How are we supposed to know when you mean financial control, and when you mean politics and populations?

    Alex R (simply baffled now)

  • Paull said:

    Whatever the religion - for a government to allow it to be taught in their country is like saying everything in that religion must be true, because if it is not true then it means you are allowing the teaching of lies, which can only create a bad society. Therefore the only ignorance is in allowing it to be taught,

    This is nonsense. I clearly distinguished between teaching about a religion and teaching that a religion is true. I hope you can tell the difference between "X is a fact" and "it is a fact that members of religion Y believe X".

    Novels aren't true. Shall we ban them from our schools too?

    An adherence to truth requires a respect for both evidence and logic.

    Alex R (posting personally)

  • "Now just hold on a minute." etc..you completely misunderstand this and it is based on facts.

    Britain is being taken over by non British people, and I was not talking about population or race etc. A huge proportion of British assets are non British owned, in fact a huge proportion of our entire infrastructure is foreign owned including power, water, transport and banking, You may think it doesn't matter who owns them but as with most businesses they want to make short term gains rather than care about long term stability, so for any country to sell off most of their infrastructure puts the future of that country in jeopardy. It means British people have not even got control of their own country. surely you can see why this is a problem ?

  • Vastly off-topic now.  Would be very interested in Paull's response to:

    Posted by IntenseWorld
    on Sat, 28/12/2013 - 11:37

    #176

  • Alex R - mod said:

    RE classes don't - if they're run according to the curriculum - teach children that any religious position is true.

    Maybe not these days, but when I went to school I was taught that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5000 people with 3 loaves and 5 fish etc, all of which are scientifically impossible. Faith schools also exist and they often have a strict regime to drum a certain religion into vulnerable childrens heads.

    "The last thing we need is more ignorance about the diversity of human experience and understanding."

    Whatever the religion - for a government to allow it to be taught in their country is like saying everything in that religion must be true, because if it is not true then it means you are allowing the teaching of lies, which can only create a bad society. Therefore the only ignorance is in allowing it to be taught,

  • Paull said:

    Then you get a message from some doddery old woman who has reigned over the complete demise of my country and it's once great empire, who has done nothing whatsoever but sit back and watch the british empire crumble and Britain become taken over by non British people...

    Now just hold on a minute.

    This doesn't look like facts; this looks like an unsupported opinion.

    Let's look at the British Empire for a moment, shall we? Which aspect of its greatness shall we consider?

    Let's think of the Opium Wars, in which Britain waged war against China in order to expand the sale of addictive drugs.

    Let's think of the Indian Mutiny, in which a revolt sparked by the ignorance and cruelty of British capitalists was put down with a brutality which quite compares to any war crime of the 20th century.

    Let's think of the entire settlement of Australia, in which entire communities were exterminated to make way for a penal colony.

    Let's think of the constant exploitation of indigenous labourers around the Empire to feed Great Britain's hunger for cotton and rubber, as well as many other products from which the vast bulk of the profits went to colonialists.

    Let's think of the slave trade, which the Empire enabled, supported, and profited from for many years before its reluctant change of heart. Let's think of the white judges sitting in calm judgement on the question of whether murdered enslaved Africans could be claimed for on insurance. Of entire Caribbean islands stripped of their indigenous people so that displaced and enslaved people could be worked to death to provide people like you and me with sweets.

    Closer to home, let's think of the Irish Potato Famine, in which a million starved and a million more were permanently exiled, because of the greed of the British. (The largest aid donation came from a Muslim.)

    Let's consider how cultural diversity was crushed across the empire, from the Welsh schoolchildren forced to learn only English to the Indian civil servants barred from ever being promoted because of their skin colour.

    The Empire was never great; it was a burden to the overwhelming majority of its subjects. The small lasting benefits are vastly outweighed by generations of suffering, decades of turmoil, and countless acts of brutality.

    And let's look now at modern Britain; you claim it is being taken over by 'non-British people'.

    According to the 2011 UK national census, 86 per cent of the population is white; 91 per cent of the population identify with at least one UK national category (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British). So I hardly think the majority is in any danger.

    But who are that majority? Well, they're not the unchanged descendants of the people who built Stonehenge, I'll tell you that for nothing. This country is inhabited entirely by the descendants of migrants. We're the children of beaker-people, Celts, Romans, Roman auxiliaries (Dacians, Africans, Germans, and many more), Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Danes, Norse, Franks, Bretons, Roma, Jews, Netherlanders, Iberians, Moors, Huguenots, Irish, Poles, and many more. The 'pure Englishman' is a myth, a chimera.

    And who ruled the Empire? Not a typical British person at all. Of Queen Victoria's 16 great-grandparents, for example, every single one of them was a German high-ranking noble, born in Germany. (Yes, even George II of Great Britain was born in his father's German territory of Hanover.) So much for the importance of Britishness.

    But finally - and this should go entirely without saying - it's really not your problem where your neighbour has come from - down the road, across the nation, or around the world. Every person is entitled to the same dignity and respect. If you think the changing face of this nation is a problem, I'd urge you to think again; in our history, change has been the only reliable factor. People's moral character has nothing to do with their skin colour, language, or where they or their ancestors grew up.

    But thanks to people in comfortable positions in this country, those who come here in search of work or shelter are made to suffer and struggle even more than they have already, to confront attitudes and practices that discriminate against them and to reassert constantly the rights that others taken for granted. If this country has any greatness, let it be shown in its welcome, its openness, its support for all. A country that cannot care for those who call upon it is an embarassment to its citizens.

    Alex R (posting very personally)

  • Paull said:
    “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” - William Faulkner

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/meddling

    Proverbs 26:17    

    Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.    

    1 Thessalonians 4:11    

    And to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you,

    Proverbs 26:20    

    For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.

    Money Mouth

  • Alex R - mod said:

    Frankly, I'm slightly alarmed by the extent to which Prince Charles interferes.

    If someone sees something they assume as wrong then it's their duty to speak out against it, and if someone has status then even more so. Whether or not you agree with anything Prince Charles says it at least shows he has a voice and and opinion and is willing to express it rather than shy away for fear of courting controversy.

    Trying to suppress peoples views by labelling it as interfering is the reason why wrongdoing in society flourishes.

    “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” - William Faulkner

  • I suggest you read this Paull:

    http://www.scholastic.com/parents/resources/article/stages-milestones/truth-about-lying

    and this:

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eHV_8YC_NL0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=lying+children+development&ots=76A3PddJgU&sig=-khJ2_mQ4Lo7jOerGsGe3zh_k0E#v=onepage&q=lying%20children%20development&f=false

    I may well have posted the same or similar links before.  If you are to be believed Paull, Santa is responsible for causing children to learn the art of lying, and traumatising them as well.  Clearly you are wrong.

    People will always lie, I don't like it any more than you, but that'sthe neurotypical world, and sometimes the Aspie one too.  Santa has nothing to do with it.

    I suggest you Google "animals deception" and you will see that humans are far from being the only creatures that practice lying.  It's part of evolution and survival.  Unfortunately, humans tend to use it for pleasure, gain, nastiness etc. but it still has it's basis in animal instinct.

    Sometimes, there are things which are neither truth or a lie, so whilst I know that we are supposedly tending to B&W thinking, life has taught me that things are rarely so B&W with many things.

  • Of course, nothing can sway from the truth. If something is then to say it isn't is a lie, if something isn't then to say it is is a lie. Everyone for the santa lies can only add things like saying it didn't harm them, it's innocent, theres no evidence it's harmful etc.. they are missing the point entirely.

    The young mind is at it's most vulnerable, every little thing a child experiences will affect that child in later life.

    If a growing child is told lies then it blurs the lines between fact and fiction, creates mistrust and interferes with the childs mental faculties, the parents are also educating children that lies are acceptable.

    No lie is innocent because even the smallest lie is like a seed, that seed can grow into a tree and that tree can grow into a forest.

    We currently live a society that lies more than tells the truth, the proof being that we are riddled with corruption and dishonesty, the media, the police, politics, business and even sport.  All the people involved were all once children. If they had been taught at an early age that no lie is acceptable then society on the whole would be less corrupt.

    It's a simple enough observation - if 99% of people in society told only the truth then there is 99% chance that a growing child in that society will grow up learning to tell only the truth, if 99% of people in society accepted and told lies then there is a 99% chance that a child from that society will grow up accepting and telling lies. A good society is an honest society, every single lie accepted and told by that society only serves to increase the likelihood of that society accepting and telling more lies, this is why no lie is innocent and therefore no lie should be accepted or told.

  • Paull said:

    yep...in fact maybe RE should be taken off the curriculum completely, afterall ,all religions are just lies, so teaching any children that anything in any religion is true is wrong.

    RE classes don't - if they're run according to the curriculum - teach children that any religious position is true. They teach about the realities of various people's beliefs - that is, that those things are believed, not that they are true. If that's not what's being taught, then the problem is with the teaching, rather than the curriculum.

    The last thing we need is more ignorance about the diversity of human experience and understanding.

    Alex R (posting personally)

  • Paull said:

    A country is only as strong as it's leader, this ignorant selfish woman has not spoken out about anything political in 60 years, a sign of weakness. She is not powerless like people are led to believe, she has world status and a platform to speak but choses to keep it zipped in order to protect her luxurious lifestyle.

    A weak leader makes weak people makes a weak country.

    The monarch hasn't exercised any direct political power for centuries. But the indirect ways the political influence of the crown has been used isn't exactly glorious. Queen Victoria herself reported that her grandfather George III had used his own money to buy elections. She, in turn, used her personal influence to interfere in the elected government's cabinet formation. If we want to see our views - whatever they are - effectively represented by our politicians, we should be eternally thankful that the Queen exerts as little influence as she does. Frankly, I'm slightly alarmed by the extent to which Prince Charles interferes.

    Alex R (posting personally)