This House believes in Santa Claus (Junior)

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Millions of children worldwide wake up on Christmas morning to find that their stocking has been magically filled with toys and candy overnight. Everybody agrees that it was Santa who was responsible - and surely if it was anyone else they would want to take credit for their generosity. Further evidence can be found in the way in which cookies, mince pies and drinks left out for Santa have been consumed in the night - often leaving crumbs.

Belief in Santa Claus is not rational. For a start his supposed activities would break all the rules of physics - how could anyone fly around the world in just one night visiting every child? How would his sleigh stay up in the air? And how could he get into so many bedrooms - most people nowadays don’t have chimneys to come down, and he wouldn’t fit down one even if they did? And do we have any proof for the existence of elves, or of reindeer?

Secondly, if Santa existed don’t you think that someone would have seen him delivering the presents, at least once? Sure, there are lots of Santa Clauses in malls and stores, but despite the red suit and hat they all look a bit different from each other. And some of their beards don’t seem very convincing to me at all.

“Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.”
Written in answer to a child’s letter by Francis Pharcellus Church and published in the New York Sun’s Editorial Page in 1897. [1]

Hope and joy should be grounded in reality, not mythology; otherwise it can only be insubstantial and transitory.

Billions of people across the world believe in Santa Claus, and so many people can’t be wrong. What’s more, a belief which was once confined to the Anglo-Saxon world is becoming more and more widespread. If Chinese and South American children are coming to accept the existence of Santa Claus, then why should we in the western world give up our belief?

It is a shame that this western capitalist icon is taking over Christmas around the world, and driving out other traditions - e.g. the Babushka in Russia, or St Nicholas in parts of Europe. The popularity of Santa Claus in other countries is cynically driven by multinational companies, eager to create new markets for their toys and other good as potential gifts. It is another downside of globalisation as unique cultures are drowned under a wave to Americanisation.

Belief in Santa Claus is also economically necessary. Without Santa to set an example of generosity, gift-giving at Christmas could go out of fashion. And once you take Santa out of Christmas, what else would be stripped away - Christmas trees, lights, tinsel, Christmas dinner? Huge sectors of our economy depend on belief in Santa Claus, from the department store grottoes to the entertainment industry, from toy shops and manufacturers to the makers of wrapping paper, stockings, red hats with bobbles on, etc. Trust is the basis of all economic exchange, and the consequences of doubt in Santa Claus, in terms of bankruptcies, closures, unemployment and stock market and currency slumps are too awful to imagine.

This argument is a Broken Window Fallacy. [2] Without Santa to set an example for Christmas,  there is no reason to suppose that people would not spend the money that they would have spent on gifts on other things, different things, things with more utility and value than Christmas trees, lights, tinsel and Christmas dinner!

Belief in Santa Claus is outdated and rather worrying. Who today has a chimney through which to send a burning message to Santa, and through which he can descend to distribute presents? Who wears stockings rather than socks or pantyhose? And who thinks an old white male is a relevant role model in today’s society? There is also something rather sinister today about having a stranger enter children’s rooms at night, or having them whispering secrets to him while seated on his lap in a store. Finally, Santa Claus with his saintly origins alienates those of other faiths who do not enjoy being forced to join in a quasi-Christian celebration.

Far from being outdated, Santa Claus is right up to date. Although he has a long and distinguished history, he has taken care to move with the times in order to be relevant to each new generation. Our modern view of Santa was shaped by Clement C. Moore’s description of him in The Night Before Christmas, and by Victorian illustrators drawing upon their European heritage to give them clues about his appearance. In the early twentieth century the most common image of Santa Claus/Father Christmas was popularised by Coca-Cola advertising posters. And as well as updating his image, Santa has also adjusted his methods, leaving presents under a tree or on the lawn if there is no chimney to climb down, and making use of a sack instead of a stocking if necessary.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Millions of children worldwide wake up on Christmas morning to find that their stocking has been magically filled with toys and candy overnight. Everybody agrees that it was Santa who was responsible - and surely if it was anyone else they would want to take credit for their generosity. Further evidence can be found in the way in which cookies, mince pies and drinks left out for Santa have been consumed in the night - often leaving crumbs.

Belief in Santa Claus is not rational. For a start his supposed activities would break all the rules of physics - how could anyone fly around the world in just one night visiting every child? How would his sleigh stay up in the air? And how could he get into so many bedrooms - most people nowadays don’t have chimneys to come down, and he wouldn’t fit down one even if they did? And do we have any proof for the existence of elves, or of reindeer?

Secondly, if Santa existed don’t you think that someone would have seen him delivering the presents, at least once? Sure, there are lots of Santa Clauses in malls and stores, but despite the red suit and hat they all look a bit different from each other. And some of their beards don’t seem very convincing to me at all.

“Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.”
Written in answer to a child’s letter by Francis Pharcellus Church and published in the New York Sun’s Editorial Page in 1897. [1]

Hope and joy should be grounded in reality, not mythology; otherwise it can only be insubstantial and transitory.

Billions of people across the world believe in Santa Claus, and so many people can’t be wrong. What’s more, a belief which was once confined to the Anglo-Saxon world is becoming more and more widespread. If Chinese and South American children are coming to accept the existence of Santa Claus, then why should we in the western world give up our belief?

It is a shame that this western capitalist icon is taking over Christmas around the world, and driving out other traditions - e.g. the Babushka in Russia, or St Nicholas in parts of Europe. The popularity of Santa Claus in other countries is cynically driven by multinational companies, eager to create new markets for their toys and other good as potential gifts. It is another downside of globalisation as unique cultures are drowned under a wave to Americanisation.

Belief in Santa Claus is also economically necessary. Without Santa to set an example of generosity, gift-giving at Christmas could go out of fashion. And once you take Santa out of Christmas, what else would be stripped away - Christmas trees, lights, tinsel, Christmas dinner? Huge sectors of our economy depend on belief in Santa Claus, from the department store grottoes to the entertainment industry, from toy shops and manufacturers to the makers of wrapping paper, stockings, red hats with bobbles on, etc. Trust is the basis of all economic exchange, and the consequences of doubt in Santa Claus, in terms of bankruptcies, closures, unemployment and stock market and currency slumps are too awful to imagine.

This argument is a Broken Window Fallacy. [2] Without Santa to set an example for Christmas,  there is no reason to suppose that people would not spend the money that they would have spent on gifts on other things, different things, things with more utility and value than Christmas trees, lights, tinsel and Christmas dinner!

Belief in Santa Claus is outdated and rather worrying. Who today has a chimney through which to send a burning message to Santa, and through which he can descend to distribute presents? Who wears stockings rather than socks or pantyhose? And who thinks an old white male is a relevant role model in today’s society? There is also something rather sinister today about having a stranger enter children’s rooms at night, or having them whispering secrets to him while seated on his lap in a store. Finally, Santa Claus with his saintly origins alienates those of other faiths who do not enjoy being forced to join in a quasi-Christian celebration.

Far from being outdated, Santa Claus is right up to date. Although he has a long and distinguished history, he has taken care to move with the times in order to be relevant to each new generation. Our modern view of Santa was shaped by Clement C. Moore’s description of him in The Night Before Christmas, and by Victorian illustrators drawing upon their European heritage to give them clues about his appearance. In the early twentieth century the most common image of Santa Claus/Father Christmas was popularised by Coca-Cola advertising posters. And as well as updating his image, Santa has also adjusted his methods, leaving presents under a tree or on the lawn if there is no chimney to climb down, and making use of a sack instead of a stocking if necessary.

Santa is a class oppressor - for he always seems to give the most and best presents to children in the richest families while those who are poor get little or nothing. And he has been enlisted as a bogeyman in the fight to make children do what their parents want. All those, “You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not shout… I’m telling you why” threats that bad children won’t be visited by Santa are just designed to scare children and keep them under control. Such a figure is not worthy of our belief.

Santa would only be a class oppressor if he was taking the excess value of the toys his elves produce and keeping it for himself.  Given that his operation is wholly altruistic he is really a symbol of the socialist ideal.

It is right and proper that children be given incentive and rewards for good behaviour, for that is how the bonds of society are built and maintained.

Belief in Santa is no different than that of any other supernatural being with omniscient powers that judges the moral choices of individuals, other than the fact that unlike the others Santa actually provides material rewards.

Belief in Santa Claus is against the real Christian message of Christmas - that Jesus Christ was born to a virgin in a stable in Bethlehem to be the saviour of the World. Neither Santa Claus nor Father Christmas appears in the Bible, and many Christians are dubious about the St Nicholas traditions as well. At best Santa is a distraction from the real Christmas story; at worst he competes with Christ for attention, confusing children and turning a Christian celebration into a worldly orgy of consumerism. It is significant that in many European traditions the red-clothed mid-winter visitor is not a St Nicholas figure, but some kind of devil instead.

Santa Claus, especially under his British name of Father Christmas, harks back to old folk ways and pagan mid-winter festivals (e.g. the Viking Yule). He reminds us of the need for life and generosity at a time when men and women were huddling depressed in the cold and dark with little to eat. Centuries ago the Christian Church adopted these festivals and tried to turn them to its own ends by locating its own celebration of the birth of Jesus (undated in the gospels) at the same time of year. But the Christians couldn’t drive out all the old beliefs and for centuries they have coexisted. The Church now should be grateful that Santa Claus allows it to get a free ride by using the popular mid-winter festivities to publicise its own beliefs.

We should have a strict regard for the truth, and see the world as it is regardless of the consequences. Our children deserve to be told the truth about Santa Claus, as well as about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the possibility of fairies at the bottom of the garden. If they start off believing in these things, one day they will become disillusioned and maybe psychologically scarred for life by the experience. And once parents start to lie to their children about Santa Claus, then other dishonesty and mistrust can all too easily follow.

Instead of giving all credit for Christmas cheer to (a saint from late-Roman Asia/ a Northern European pagan winter spirit - delete as applicable) we should celebrate our humanity. Teaching children to share and feel the pleasure in giving, as well as receiving is much better for them, rather than outsourcing all generosity in a rather embarrassed way to Santa Claus.

Lying to children can be justified.  Firstly, the ideas of magic, and better things give a kid something to believe in. If you go to a child's house during Christmas time, who believes Santa is real, you will see the brightness on his face, and you can tell he has "adopted the Christmas spirit". A child who knows Santa's mythical existence is more absorbed by the ideal of receiving than the spirit in which we give at Christmas.

Santa can be abstract. We need to think of Santa not as a person with a long white beard, but as a state of mind. We all need something to believe in. You don't have to be religious to believe in Santa, you just need to believe in Santa. His comforting laugh can cheer anyone up and give them the "Christmas spirit".

In order to get kids to believe in Santa Claus, it’s not enough to commit a couple of simple lies and move on. As with any lie, it’s necessary to construct more and more elaborate lies and defences as time passes. Sceptical questions about Santa must be met with detailed lies about Santa’s powers. “Evidence” of Santa Claus must be created once mere stories of Santa prove insufficient. It’s unethical for parents to perpetuate elaborate deceptions on children unless it’s for a greater good.

Children will eventually become sceptical about Santa Claus and ask questions about him, for example how he could possibly travel around the whole world in such a short period of time. Instead of encouraging this scepticism and helping children come to a reasonable conclusion about whether Santa Claus is even possible, much less real, most parents discourage scepticism by telling tales about Santa’s supernatural powers.

We are not entirely truthful with children all the time in furtherance of their best interests.  Children are not adults and do not have the decision making and analytical abilities of adults.  Sometimes they need to be told white lies in order to influence them to make the right decisions, if not for the reasons that an adult would use for them.

Children will eventually become sceptical and investigate Santa Claus for themselves, but there’s no difference there with any other fact or belief that is imparted to children by their parents.  Scepticism is a natural part of growing up that by its nature happens independently of encouragement or discouragement.