The Santa Clause Lie
Thursday, December 20, 2007 Filed in: Things
I neither understood nor appreciated the Santa Claus
lie. Giving gifts out of love is one thing, lying
about it is something else. What does it teach
children?
Since gifts are exchanged rather than simply given out of the heart's motivation, the whole premise of giving gifts at Christmas is tainted. An exchange of gifts implies an agreement to keep the social and economic scales balanced. Why? What's wrong with giving a gift without expecting one in return?
Do not children learn at Christmas that getting is better than giving? Do they ever learn truly to give from the heart or to receive gifts with humility and acceptance (rather than with the accompanying need to give back and keep a balance?)
The Santa Claus myth is equally dangerous to a child. When children learn that there really is no such thing as Santa Claus, do they learn that a certain kind of lying by respected authorities is acceptable? That perpetuation of myth is socially and economically beneficial, though not personally so?
What takes place in a young adult's mind when they later learn that Santa Clause and Christmas, as an annual commercial celebration, was once reviled by religious authorities? After all, how could anything that spreads such cheer and joy be bad? Oh, except for the whole premise of lies upon which the tradition hangs?
Would it not be better to teach children the value of true giving, devoid of the empty impetus and inherent responsibility attached to a calendar date and required in a national holiday?
If Santa Clause is a lie, then why perpetuate the lie? The same goes for the Christmas celebration as a whole. Why perpetuate the lies of Christmas? The roots of the holiday are not in Christ, but in pagan rituals. Crass commercialism has replaced the spiritual aspects of the season that never existed in the first place.
Is the truth so unattractive that it must be adorned with lies to be acceptable to the masses? Perhaps so. After all, sugar and cinnamon are put on oatmeal to make it tastier. Why not put falsehoods and lies on reality to make it appear even better?
Since gifts are exchanged rather than simply given out of the heart's motivation, the whole premise of giving gifts at Christmas is tainted. An exchange of gifts implies an agreement to keep the social and economic scales balanced. Why? What's wrong with giving a gift without expecting one in return?
Do not children learn at Christmas that getting is better than giving? Do they ever learn truly to give from the heart or to receive gifts with humility and acceptance (rather than with the accompanying need to give back and keep a balance?)
The Santa Claus myth is equally dangerous to a child. When children learn that there really is no such thing as Santa Claus, do they learn that a certain kind of lying by respected authorities is acceptable? That perpetuation of myth is socially and economically beneficial, though not personally so?
What takes place in a young adult's mind when they later learn that Santa Clause and Christmas, as an annual commercial celebration, was once reviled by religious authorities? After all, how could anything that spreads such cheer and joy be bad? Oh, except for the whole premise of lies upon which the tradition hangs?
Would it not be better to teach children the value of true giving, devoid of the empty impetus and inherent responsibility attached to a calendar date and required in a national holiday?
If Santa Clause is a lie, then why perpetuate the lie? The same goes for the Christmas celebration as a whole. Why perpetuate the lies of Christmas? The roots of the holiday are not in Christ, but in pagan rituals. Crass commercialism has replaced the spiritual aspects of the season that never existed in the first place.
Is the truth so unattractive that it must be adorned with lies to be acceptable to the masses? Perhaps so. After all, sugar and cinnamon are put on oatmeal to make it tastier. Why not put falsehoods and lies on reality to make it appear even better?
