I'm sure they feel very enlightened.
"Thank you very much for demonstrating your paper’s low level of journalistic integrity in today’s reporting of the “Santa Controversy.” I was misquoted in both ofyour articles, and much of what I had to say--including the main points of the interview I agreed to give to your reporter, Mr. Schuler, were omitted entirely. Perhaps these qualities is why your circulation is so low, why free papers show up at my door all the time, as well why I get frequent nuisance calls from your telemarketers wanting me to subscribe to your three-page paper. You really do need to give it away.
I never said in my telephone interviews with Mr. Schuyler that I want everyone to “agree with” my beliefs about teaching, or not teaching, Santa Claus to children. What I said, as I stated in my letter to the editor and evidently need to clarify further, was that 1) what public school is doing by promoting Santa Claus is promoting a form of religion; that 2) religion should not be promoted in public school; 3) a teacher should not be required to promote a religion in public school; and 4) the lesson plan requiring me to promote Santa Claus was imposing religion on me, not the other way around. I certainly am not responsible for, or interested in, making people believe as I do about anything, for that is definitely not my job.
Leonard Martin, a friend of mine, is without a doubt the gentlest, humblest, meekest man I know, a devout Christian who practices his belief in God with the highest integrity. He does not believe in violence or retribution or “revenge.” Mr. Martin never used the phrase “a form of revenge” in speaking to Mr.Schuler, and yet he was represented as saying this or believing in this.
You neglected to include my entire statements about freedom of speech and religion. Don’t you like the Constitution? It read: “Furthermore, freedom of speech and religion, no matter how unpopular the speech or against cultural norms the religion, are protected rights under the Constitution of the United States.” I also said, in full: that belief in Santa is “ a distorted substitute for the Judeo-Christian God; a false form of Christianity; a zealously-protected American idol.” I also said, without edit, “If people are upset about the revelation to children that Santa Claus is a myth-- which all children who are taught this lie find or figure out eventually-- perhaps it is because Santa is that zealously-guarded idol of their own modern religion.” This statment only makes sense if you include the phrases you omitted.
I spoke in trust with Mr. Schuler, who told me the article was to be a front-page story showing Leonard Martin’s sign, and that the inclusion of my involvement at the school was to be a small part of that story. It was under those terms that I agreed to be interviewed. Instead, your editors put me on the front page- rather negatively, in fact-- and Mr. Martin’s sign, small and off to the bottom, on page five. I would never have agreed to speak to this reporter at all, had I known that your paper would distort both my words and its intentions about the use of my words. Evidently a lame front-page “contoversy” beats stating quotations and sentiments accurately and without bias. Is this how you think you will sell a few more papers?
I would wish you to print this letter in its entirety, but based on today’s experience, I highly doubt all my words will appear as I intend them to appear, which means all of my words, none deleted, without your “editing.” It might even make your paper bigger."
http://invoman.com/santa_claus.htm
I try to explain it from a Biblical view.
No public school teacher should be required to teach a belief, or custom, or religion that he or she believes to be false,"<<< Good point!...If they believe that strongly, they should do the honorable thing and quit before involving themselves!!...
What about Hanukkah Harry?
Reporters are in the business of getting printed. The stories which get printed are the stories that generate controversy. A reporter will do what he needs to do in order to generate such controversy
A well-placed source might have promises to him kept -- not out of honor, but to keep him as a source. A one-shot source is different, and may be burned with impunity. Speaking as somebody who has dealt with reporters
Upon this tirade the children were nestled asleep at their desks, while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads.
What an interesting thread!
I must admit, I am confused by some of the arguments being offered here.
On the one hand, many people are saying that "Santa Claus" is a myth (like The Illiad), or a fantasy story and thus there is no harm in teaching about him. After all, the Iliad is taught in school, as are fantasy tales like "The Lord of the Rings".
However, children don't believe those things are true. If something is a myth, children are told that it is a myth and when I was a child, it was stressed that myths are not true.
On the other hand, much of the anger directed at this teacher seems to be precisely because she taught Santa as a myth, a fantasy tale, and not the truth.
If Santa is a myth, then what is wrong with calling him that?
Do people teach their children that Frodo and Sam are real people?
This pervert "teacher" gets off on inflicting emotional pain on little children and hides behind some high-minded "light of truth" defense to wiggle away from any condemnation.
Far from having any understanding of human social dynamics, she's even further from empathizing with the hearts and spirits of young children. Their needs to dream and have wonder, fantasy and play in their lives.
If justice had any presence in this state, or our society, her license to teach would be ripped from her grasp and she'd be listed with the authorities under a form of Megan's Law registration.
I sure hope she can't breed.
A crazed former postal worker breaks into his old post office, brandishing a shotgun, and starts shooting. He is clearly targeting only women. You see a woman duck into a closet to hide, and choose to stand in front of it, casually. He asks you, wild-eyed: "is anyone in there?" You say, "No." He takes your word for it and moves on; you have, therefore, saved a life by lying.
No doubt we would all agree that you have done a good thing. The question is, have you sinned; do you need God's forgiveness for that act; or is it credited to you as a good deed? I say the latter.
If you're interested in a Biblical version of this scenario, it is not hard to find: Exodus 1:15-20, Joshua 2:1-7.
Even more interesting is 1 Samuel 16:1-4, in which God actually commanded Samuel to deceive Saul. Or 2 Kings 6:14-20, in which God actually participated in a ruse, carried out by Elisha, against some Syrian soldiers sent to seize him.
These examples are extreme, no doubt; it is one thing to lie to save a life and another to allow a child to believe in a fantasy. But the bigger issue to me, here, is that it seems that it is sometimes not even wrong to use a falsehood; not just the lesser of two evils, but not evil in the first place.
Is it still so in the case of Santa Claus? Perhaps. But, perhaps we should expect a little more humility in addressing the question from the affirmative point of view.
"The belief in Santa Claus as a divine, magical, omniscient, powerful, giving, loving father-figure, to which children are taught to make supplications and requests, is a religion indeed-- a distorted substitute for the Judeo-Christian God; a false form of Christianity; a zealously-protected American idol."
Uhm... I just kinda thought he was a right jolly old elf... you c*nt.
SOTG
It does amaze me that while it is absolutely wrong to teach Jesus during the Christmas season, it is perfectly correct to replace Him with a Santa Claus and change the term from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays.
Maybe people are offended with Jesus?
We told our kids the truth about Santa as soon as they were able to understand the truth.
We forbid them from telling other kids, and we sure don't force them to go along with the ridiculous fable.
So is the right to be stupid and the right to keep your mouth shut so no one will notice.
sheesh....
No public school teacher should be required to teach a belief, or custom, or religion that he or she believes to be false, or be required to pass those purported falsehoods onto impressionable children, without the right to state a disclaimer.
yeah. and how quickly would a techer be fired if they said the exact smae thing in regards to evolution?
I'm sure they feel very enlightened.
Two words that would solve everything:
School Vouchers!
The teacher is absolutely right. I agree with her views and in a similiar situation I would also EDUCATE the children. The job of a teacher is not to propagate fantasy and myth.