"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."
This woman is not the brightest light. Santa is supposed to be a childish belief.
Personally, I just think it's not what she said, but how she said it and the tacit meanings that result. I personally don't see anything wrong in telling the background behind Santa, but at the same time, it is also important for me to note that she definitely should have known that many six year olds still believe in Santa--therefore, by not revealing it to be a myth.
Basically what I'm saying is that I can't find anything wrong with what she did. On the other hand, there was a much better way to meet both her objective and that of the lesson plans without torquing off the township as well. She clearly didn't give much thought to how she was going to present this material, and it literally backfired in her face.
I stopped believing in Santa when I was in first grade. Then again, I was reading at a fifth grade level in kindergarten--so maybe that was it.
But among normal kids, I've found that it's not uncommon for kids to believe, and it's equally common to not believe.
Though usually by second or third grade, these kids find out eventually. Spoiling the surprise, perhaps? Possibly Yes, possibly no.
Then again, several posters bring up the valid point that often these kids find out by either a classmate or an older student who "spills the beans." Or the fact that they're going to the malls and they see 47 Santas and it dawns on them that Santa can't possibly be everywhere at once...
Nay, what should be emphasized is that while Santa doesn't exist in reality as a person, the symbolism of unselfish giving to other people, especially the less fortunate that he inherently represents--it's not the person, but the idea. In essence, we are in fact Santa to other people. If she would have done that, I don't see any harm done.
This approach is compatible with Christianity on the grounds that on that night, God unselfishly gave man the greatest gift of all--His only begotten Son.