Parents with children in public schools, a question

Just down the road from me a first grade teacher told her students that there is no Santa Claus, and an uproar ensued. This uproar is also going on here on DU Santa thread.

What I want to know is what is more important to be left alone whether you teach your children there is a Santa or not or what you teach your children about the nature of Earth, life, and God?

We have such an uproar over a teacher saying there is no Santa, which I agree, it is something that should be left to parents. What I don’t understand is why there is not such an uproar from all sides regarding ID and/or creationism in science classes in public education.

I don't raise children but most everyone I know agrees with me on this. Parents and churches teach children about God. Just like in this situation parents chose to tell their children Santa/NoSanta. I usually refrain from saying what I would or wouldn't want in regards to children I will never have but I'm pretty sure on this one, any child I am responsible for will learn about God and Christianity from me, their mother, and our churches, not from a school teacher. I should say a public school teacher, if they are sent to a parochial or private school I am paying for it and choosing what type of education they receive.

I have never understood why a devout Christian wants a public school teacher teaching their children theology. There are times and places for true debates on such matters and I for one enjoy such conversations, and there are certainly times and places for it in public educational settings. The educational study of religions are in my opinion a needed thing for better understanding of the social studies, but the teaching of a religion or religious doctrine is a totally different thing.

We fight for the science of evolution over the myth of creation, except when it comes to Santa Claus.

Not a religious one. Not an ideological one. Okay, I'll grant that Christmas is a Xtian holiday, however Santa has nothing at all to do with Xtianity.

But teachers should not enter into the Santa debate.

Teaching creationism as Science (facts) vs. teaching about a cultural tradition (belief).

Myths fused with facts vs. beliefs

Creationism confounds myths with facts. Santa doesn't, it's all myth and not taught as a fact but a belief.

We should teach our children about various cultural beliefs AS beliefs NOT facts. Creationism belongs in the same realm, not a course where it's treated as factual.

....isn't it rooted in Catholicism?! :shrug:

I think it's totally wrong for that teacher to tell the kids there is no Santa. That is a bizarre thing for a person who works with little kids to do, goes against everything you do with kids that age. That's the age of imaginary friends, and lots of wonderful dreams.
It's not a religious thing, but a cultural icon and a family tradition..

As far as creationism goes.. that should not be taught in public schools because it's religion.

My teacher told the entire class there was no such thing as Santa Claus. I remember looking around the room at everyone and no one seemed to be alarmed. I was in a complete anxiety attack. At lunch, I ran home to my mother and asked her about it. It was an extremely traumatic experience for me.

If this happened to my child I would flip out. Especially, in the first grade for pete's sake.

You make some great points. I do not want other people exposing my child to their ideas about religion. Spirituality is very personal to me. IMO a lot of people have their heads all screwed-up about it. I also don't want other to teach my children "values". Those are things that are done in the home and I want them taught mine.

charade, imho. I remember my son (in preschool) came home and said, "Peter said he doesn't get presents for Christmas. Why not?" And when I was a little girl my neighbors only got used presents from the police department. Um, it was pretty obvious to me there was no guy flying around handing out stuff.

Once children start meeting other kids who don't celebrate the same holidays as they do (or kids who are *poor*) or are smart enough to begin to understand the laws of physics, parents should quit lying. Or tell kids that Santa is a spirit of giving.

School should be for teaching science and facts. If parents don't want their kids to learn about reality, they should consider homeschooling.

Its something that teachers...particularly early elementary school teachers...should stay out of. "Once a kid reaches elementary school age, its time to give up Santa" -- that's a personal belief on your part. Nothing more, nothing less. You should be rightly outraged if, having told your first grader that there was no Santa, a teacher took it upon him/herself to contradict you. By the same token, a parent who has decided not to tell their kids that Santa isn't real should be rightly outraged if that decision is contradicted by a school teacher.

onenote

to decide. I don't agree that teachers should lie if asked directly, but whatever. If most parents want teachers to do so... I guess that's democracy!

Still... I wonder why so many parents are *so* invested in the idea that kids should maintain this fantasy well beyond the age of three or four. That a seven-year-old -- who already has a very good idea about the way the world works -- should believe that there's a magic guy out there handing out presents (more to the rich kids!) is, well, creepy.

And what about the kids who are totally fooled -- they must feel completely disillusioned when they finally figure it out.

Why are Americans so in love with the Santa myth?

they have fun. because they are kids. they get to be kids. this is just part of being a kid. nothing more. my 3 and 5 yr old were learning the realities of this world when 3000 people died because a plane went into buildings. they have watched people lie in the name of christ, because they are so fearful to have faith in christ. they have listened to ministers preach kerry is a murder, democrats arent christian. they get the realities of the world like i never did when i was 7, 8, 10. they not only get to see it in their now president, having invaded a country and lied about it, they get to resolve it in themselves so they can have a balanced and healthy childhood. they are given the adult world at every turn and expected to deal with it.

if they want to do the fantasy of santa, or easter bunny, or tooth fairy, so be it.

I love fantasy -- when my guys were really little I told them goblins lived in the backyard. But the Santa thing. Ugh. I just think when kids start to see that there ARE poor kids and there ARE Jewish kids, it can be confusing and even painful to try and figure out why they get goodies and others don't. KNOWING it's just a fun game doesn't make Christmas less enjoyable for them.

But hey, I'm a member of the culture, and we go along with it.

around telling all the kids santa wasnt real. told mine you can believe or not, up to you. he was concerned kid would not get presents and i told him, you can darn well bet that parent is going ot take care of that child. now they didnt tell the story cause fundie christian and christmas is not about santa but christ. no reindeer, snowman or santa. their whole school wasnt allowed santa. was fun getting into public where they would make santa creations for me to hang on wall for season

you are allowed to not believe. dont have a single issue. and as parent i will deal with what my kid gets from the other kids. my job. i will have faith in your parenting, but equally, i would appreciate the same. cant demand it, cant expect it, but it would be nice to equally have it

and I certainly don't think someone who goes all out for Santa is a bad parent, at all. I happen to be an atheist, but I don't think religious people are bad parents. In fact, the best parents I know are devout Catholics. There are LOTS of ways to parent well.

This is more about thinking about what the role of the school is, and whether it should lie to kids. I happen to think not, but I seem to be in the minority. ;-) And I think that we really should think about the meaning of what we're telling them. I felt guilty that I had more presents than my poorer friends (yeah, yeah, lifelong liberal) and the belief in Santa means not thinking about that.

I never remember believing in Santa -- maybe that's why I feel I can take or leave it. When I was four or five my mother told me: "Don't tell the other kids, it'll spoil their fun!" I was like, Eh, it didn't spoil my fun! I'm a Christmas enthusiast -- make the gingerbread, play the carols on the piano. Who needs the fat man? Shopping malls, that's who.

as you play those carols on piano. ya, well it isnt about santa that is for sure. we dont need him either but he is fun. i love when "mamma kissing santa claus",.... comes on. oh i giggle so. my boys get quiet and listen and dont quite have it figured out. they can clearly see dad is amused too. now the oldest is ten he doesnt believe, the song makes sense and it is so funny to him

hey, smokingjacket, it is ALL good

happy holidays

happy holidays -- all of them! -- to you too!

Its not just an American thing, although we've put our own spin on it. While I don't know much about the traditions of other countries I'd be surprised if the Santa (or Kringle or St. Nicholas) story is 'debunked' as soon as a kid hits 5 years of age.

onenote

Kids LOVE this kind of thing. Not just for the materialistic aspects--they were SO excited when a leprechaun visited their classroom and knocked over chairs and left green footprints....

And it's fun for the adults, too. Parenting isn't supposed to be a 18-year-long hard slog. It's supposed to be at least partly fun. And there isn't anything cuter than listening to two little 6- or 7-year-olds seriously discussing how many carrots to leave out for the reindeer, or whether Santa goes potty while he's on the road, or why they can't sleep by the window on Christmas Eve (they don't want to scare Santa away by seeing him).

However, I'll admit that ever since our son found out there was no Santa, he is ALWAYS rubbing it in about how we lied to him for years, therefore it's okay for him to lie to us about homework....

I know my son has always been very determined to know the reality of things -- after finding out that not every kid gets oodles of presents, and knowing that things without wings can't fly -- he bugged me to death until I told him the truth. He was four, and I was relieved. The myth always made me uncomfortable.

BUT he still enjoys pretending -- he has an enormous imagination and writes incredible stories. I don't think knowing the truth means you can't enjoy the story -- in fact... maybe it helps. My son believes that reality is finite... but imagination is unlimited.

Believing something that doesn't make sense to you is not always fun. It wasn't for my son.

I have another son. He's five, and simply never asks. I suspect he knows -- his best friend is Jewish -- but he prefers to maintain the illusion, at least to us.

Still I wonder why this particular myth is SO dear to us. I suspect it's because it drives our economy... but then again, I'm a cynic. ;-)

should be the one to decide that.

My best friend believed in Santa until she was 12 - I swear this is what she told me. And she's one of the kindest, most thoughtful people I know -- it didn't scar her to learn there was no Santa.

Besides, what the teacher really missed was a golden opportunity for a lesson in beliefs and differences and respect.

Here's your lump of coal.

Hanging around malls with that fake-ass beard! Buying huge piles of electronics for spoiled twelve-year olds! Ho-ho-ho, sit on my lap! Yes, I'll promise to give you whatever you want, unless of course, your family was made destitute by Hurricane Katrina! Then you'll get shit, little boy!

I looooooove Christmas. But I ain't so crazy about the buy-buy-buy aspect, and its jelly-bellied mascot.

that is factually incorrect. that is not allowed to be taught to my kid. we knw factually it is not correct. not an opinion not a thought. he says, give em all sides. nOOOOO i say. i will not allow something to be given to kids as a possibility when factually we know it is NOT a possiblility. so.... i agree with you. and if it is given to my kids in school, not only do they know this planet is older than 6009 years old and they have a responsibility to speak out, we also understand so many in our area that are educated yet still insist on believing this. and allow them to have their belief without honoring a lie. we wont do it. i will speak out if the school does it. they have not.

And I'm enormously opposed to teaching creationism.

Hold up, before you all jump down my throat, let me explain. I don't intend to deprive her of the experience either. I intend to make clear to her from the very first Christmas season that she can actually talk and understand things (she's only two months old right now) that Santa Claus is entirely make-believe, but we like to play along with the ruse because of tradition, and most importantly, because it's fun! I do, however, intend to pass along to her my own opinions about the nature of Earth, life, and God (I'm a Unitarian Universalist, btw...).

is what i say. i have never said there is a santa. now santa leaves a note to thank for the milk and cookies we lay out. and santa leaves presents. but NEVER have i told the boys there is a santa.

My child's (and by extension, my family's) beliefs--all of them--are no business of the school. Period. I pay school taxes to ensure that my child is taught to read, to write, to do math, to learn geography, spelling, and science. That's the school's job. Ethics, religion, and cultural mores (with a few exceptions for the latter) are not the purview of public school. I don't want teachers telling my kid there is or there isn't a Santa Claus, or there is or isn't a god. It would be nice to keep supernatural beings out of the classroom entirely, but Santa is problematic...because most American kids (I think) know of him. I guess in the ideal world, any discussion of Santa should be cursory, superficial. Do they talk about the tooth fairy? Do they talk about storybook characters as if they're real (in first grade)? The line on this is blurry, but I think it can be handled both tactfully and without giving anything away on either side. "Yes, Santa is one of the symbols of the season. Who can name three more?" Maybe I'm overthinking this. I'm awfully glad I'm not a teacher. I'm a parent.

My job is to turn my child into a responsible and ethical adult through modelling ethical behavior and teaching my own beliefs. I can't teach math. It's not my job. Why would anyone expect a school to teach values? You don't know whose values you're getting.

a disaster either. let's face it, kids eventually tell each other this stuff - you can't keep the secret as long as you wish. And I subscribe to the theory where Santa is not a religious thing - he comes to our home on winter solstice. parents need to realize that the control over information is only limited - and be ready to deal with the fallout.

topic of discussion.

I do not mind other people exposing my child to their ideas about religion, as long as I can be involved in the learning process and help guide them in this. It's a delicate balance, I suppose, and I've learned some lessons about that recently.

I have a very eclectic, shall we say, view of religion and of beliefs of personal spirituality, and I've never told my 3 kids, "This is how it is--this is how I want you to believe..." I was exposed to all kinds of beliefs when I was growing up. But, I realize I've been kind of 'lazy' when it comes to teaching my kids about religion. I do let them visit other churches with their friends, but we do not attend church. Seems we do great in basic education--but the religious stuff, well, I've got to get a handle on how I can address this:

My teenager right now is in an Honors English class with a teacher who draws a lot of comparisons between classic literature and the Bible (--I don't get the impression the teacher's a religious fanatic or anything--it's pretty basic stuff and seems objective, mostly historical things and various points like symbolism, etc.). My daughter asked me to get a "Bible for Dummies" book for her because she felt she was the only one in class that didn't 'get it'. We had a long discussion about this, and I realized that perhaps in me not sending my daughter to church and/or Sunday school, that she was missing out. She assures me she does not want to go, nor does she regret not having gone to Sunday school, but she is now of an age where we both are realizing how important it is for her to know some basics about Christianity, Jesus, and other religions.

My son, who is only 4 1/2, on the other hand, was going to a Methodist daycare---one that my oldest daughter went to for years and years, btw. I knew that they had prayer before meals, and talked about 'God' a little, sang some religious songs, etc., but I never knew the extent of it until recently (maybe they've become more religious?). He and I got into a discussion about 'God' the other day, and he was so insistent on his version that his teacher at pre-school had taught him, that he did not even want to hear my view point. Now I realize he is only 4, but this really bothered me. He was so defensive about my questioning and small criticisms of the view he had been taught. (This was a simple thing about whether God is a man, and whether he/she lives in the clouds/heaven, etc. My viewpoint with my kids has always been more of a holistic and eclectic thing about Mother Nature, Earth, various beliefs in God, how we don't know for sure what 'God' is or whether there is a god even, etc.)

So, the point I'm making here is that with my kids, if I entrust them to someone else to learn about religion, which is such a subjective concept IMHO, then will it lessen my impact on their learning?

(BTW, we pulled my son out of the daycare, not for any of the reasons noted here, but because it cost too darn much and now he's a stay-at-home kid. I really felt that whatever they were teaching him about 'God' would be a starting point for continued discussion as he grows, so I was never concerned enough to pull him out for that reason. It was just a little red flag that gave me pause for concern for the future and made me realize we have more work to do in educating our kids.)

I will be making a more concerted effort with my kids to teach them about religion, not to brainwash them into thinking a particular way, but to teach them the basics of various beliefs and types of religions, and to help them to be inquiring and discerning, so that they can make their own choices as they grow. I used to think this kind of thing wouldn't have an impact on me. I was wrong.

I agree that the public schools have no business teaching theology/ID/Creationism. The Methodist daycare I sent my kids to was my choice, but I would not want that kind of thing happening throughout their public education. And you make a good point about 'why a devout Christian would want a public school teacher teaching their children theology...' Their kids could be the ones coming home and arguing with them that, "My teacher said it was this way, not your way...your beliefs are wrong..." What a can of worms!

When William Jennings Byran first proposed his Bryan Bill on teaching evolution, he only wanted to forbid the teaching of Human evolution in School on the grounds it interfered with how Parent's wanted to teach their children theology. As an attorney he fully accepted that you could NOT teach the bible in the Public Schools, he also accepted most aspects of the Theory of Evolution (He had read Darwin's books about 1906 and had written extensively about it for over 20 years before the Scoop's Monkey Trial, including several exchange of letters with various advocates of Evolution) BUT believed that when something interfered with what a Parent wanted to learn, the parent's choice should be first. Furthermore since Parent's were paying the taxes to support the public schools, what is taught in the public schools is something up to the local school board or State Legislature BASED ON WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OF THAT AREA WANT TAUGHT. This was the basis behind the Statute in litigation in the Scoop's Trial (The original proposed statute written by Bryan did NOT include any punishment for Bryan's position was he was dealing with professionals and all that was needed was a law informing Teachers of want could not be taught (In Tennessee, State Representative Butler added a $100-500 Fine, the adding of the fine Bryan opposed and lobbied the Tennessee Legislature to Remove, but the Law, called in Tennessee the Butler Law" was passed with a fine).

As far as the Bryan was concerned the issue in the Scoops trial was NOT punishing Scoops (Bryan even proposed paying the fine himself, but Scoops told him the town had already arranged for payment of the fine even before he decided to say he had violated the Butler Law) but how much direction can Local and State Government give to teachers? The ACLU saw the issue differently, as a restriction on Science when Science interfered with theology (And Tried to get Darrow off the case for Darrow, as Bryan clearly said in his testimony, wanted to attack revealed Religion, something the ACLU did NOT want to do).

In many ways both Bryan and the ACLU saw Scoops as a perfect showcase for the above argument, an ARGUMENT BOTH WANTED TO DEBATE. The problem is once Bryan said he was going to join the Prosecution to defend the Butler Act, Darrow joined the Defense pro bono. The ACLU had been involved in the case from day one, even advertising in Southern Newspapers offering legal representation to any teacher who wanted to challenge the Butler Act (and it was in response to these ads that the people of Dayton Tennessee, seeing an opportunity to get people to come to their town for the trial, decided to challenge the Butler act by asking their High School Gym teacher, Scoops, to say he taught Evolution when he covered for the Biology Teacher when the Biology Teacher was sick).

Darrow was NOT known as an intellect or a debater, he was known for his relentless Cross-Examination skills. As such he was NOT the type of person to participate in a debate, but saw Scoops as a chance to attack Religion AND DID SO ONLY AFTER BRYAN HAD JOINED THE PROSECUTION. This was only a year after the Lowe Murder case where Darrow had manged to convince a Judge NOT to execute two teens who had killed a younger teen just to see how a person would die. Scoops seems to have liked the idea of Darrow defending him and insistent that Darrow stay even as the ACLU asked him to fire Darrow (While Darrow was NOT Charging Scoops for his services, the expert witnesses, the other attorneys and other legal costs were bing paid by the ACLU).

Thus even in the Scoops Monkey Trial, debate on the subject was restricted, even through the real moving parties (Bryan and the ACLU) wanted to debate the issue.

Please note if you impression of the Scoop's Monkey Trial is from the Play and later movie "Inherit the Wind" the above does not make sense. The reason for that is the above is NOT in the play or movie. I can go into further differences between the two (so much that the play's authors even said their play was NOT history and it was an attack on McCarthyism NOT Bryan or the Scoops Monkey Trial) but that can take pages (and an argument can be made the play is SLANDER given the number of changes made) and I am trying to keep this short. In fact at the closing of the Trial, Bryan made a nice statement about the case saying he knew the debate would be settled right BUT ONLY AFTER LONG DEBATE which the Scoops trial was just the start.

The Bryan vs ACLU debate just never took place. Bryan died five days after the trial (From Diabetes and a huge work level he had been doing since at least 1896) and no one again wanted to challenge the Butler law till the 1960s (When the ACLU mongered to get the Butler Act declared Unconstitutional as state endorsed religion). Like abortion this decision of the Supreme Court, while intended to minimize the debate, actually suppressed the debate. It is NOT court Decisions but debates is how we Americans resolve conflicts. When two rights conflicts how do you balance between them (Remember the debate is State control of PUBLIC EDUCATION vs Science). In most areas these two areas do not conflict, but when Science is seen as hostile to the Theology of the Majority of a State then how do you resolve the Conflict? To reject the wants of the Majority (even if the Majority is wrong) is to reject Democracy. On the other hand, to impose a theology, even if it is supported by the Majority, is to violate the Whole Concept of the First Amendment.

This is the Debate Bryan and the ACLU wanted to start in the 1920s. Darrow's handling of the Case gave the South the Impression the ACLU wanted to attack Christianity (Something the ACLU did NOT want to do for most of their supporters at that time were Quakers and other pacifist Christian religionists). Against such an attack the South recoiled and became even more rigid ending the debate from Bryan's side (and Bryan being dead, unable to get the debate going again). AS to the ACLU, Darrow handling of the case cause them to lose membership and contributions leading the ACLU out of the Debate. No one else picked it up till after the 1960s when Christian Fundamentalist took up the Supreme Court Decision on the Butler Law as another sign of an attack on Religion (Even going as far as attacking Bryan for giving in on many Theological grounds during his testimony during the Scopes Trial, by the way Bryan was a Presbyterian not a Fundamentalist and as such fully willing to point out the seven days that God Created the World was periods of unknown lengths and meant to be symbolic NOT actual).

Thus the debate needed on this subject never occurred, and still not occurring for both sides end up attacking each other rather than trying to find common ground. The right do not want to debate this for the Right wants to use Intelligent Design as a wipe to stir up their followers. The Scientific left (AS I like to call them) want to use "Science" as the US Theology (Even as they deny what they are saying is a world-view, which is the basis of any theology). The Religious and Secular Left wants to stay out of the fight, while the Secular Right view the fight as a way to keep people who normally vote left to vote right (and thus finance the Religious Right to keep up the fight).

Thus no debate on where we are to draw the line as to Majority Will and the right NOT to establish a Religion. Like Bryan and the ACLU of the 1920s this is a debate needed in this Country. Where do we draw the line? And once you debate and agree to a line as to this debate, you can go on to the next debate (State Control of Corporation and Rights of Stock holders), Right of Workers to unionized and private property of Corporations, right of Corporation to ship jobs overseas opposed to tariff on imports. These are also things that should be debated and once debated resolved, but the Secular Right do NOT want these debated for they will lose and thus fight against any debate as to balancing two opposing rights.

kick for the evening crowd