There's a pretty big difference, I think, between lying and telling stories. Children often believe in a lot of things from fairy and folk tales, and many parents don't discourage this. They grow to discover the truth, or what they want to believe, for themselves: this is part of becoming an adult, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It seems to me that people are constantly horrified, second-guessing themselves, lest they traumatise their children. Children are a lot more resilient than we give them credit for. There are going to be changes in belief as one grows up; that's just part of it.
I'm definitely big on not coddling children, but to me, this is about straight-up lying to children. To me, telling your children Santa brings them their Christmas presents is on par with telling them the stork brought them to the family as infants (though admittedly, Santa stories don't have the nasty repercussions of children having unsafe sex).
Do you remember how I had rage at Chesterton's "Old nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the fairies that dance on the grass" (from section 4 of Orthodoxy)? I think truth is powerful and wonderful. I think you can tell children about St. Nicholas and/or the various toy drives that go in the holiday season and teach them about giving to the less fortunate in a very powerful way. I think you can tell children about the longest night of the year and how people throughout history have told stories about light in the darkness (and my ideal Christmas celebration, were I to have one, would involve lots of white candles). I think stories can be powerful things even when presented as stories, but I don't agree with presenting stories as fact. Granted, religious stories are something of a grey area since not everyone believes Jesus rose from the dead, but I wouldn't argue that Christian parents shouldn't tell their children that he did as if it were fact. But I think as long as something is firmly in the religious section of discussion then as children grow they will see these as leaps of faith and agree or disagree with them as they see fit. I can understand if a child latches on to a story not wanting to say, "That's not true, that's just a story" unless active belief would somehow hurt them (like if a child read a story about someone who ate magic berries and gained the power to fly and then wanted to go eat berries off neighbors' bushes) but to actively present a myth as fact (and again, if the parent believes a story to be fact but other people don't -- i.e. Christian narratives of Jesus -- that's different because the parent does in fact believe the story to be true).
I know we have the spiritual/earthly argument a lot, but I honestly have no problem with Christmas (or any other winter holiday) being celebrated as more than just a purely spiritual endeavor. The feasting and candles that is so much a part of so many winter celebrations is very rooted in the earthly -- need for food and light and warmth -- and I can totally get behind that so long as it is done with intentionality. So much of what bothers me about traditional celebrations is that they become rote and meaningless (or at least, they become so separated from any original meaning and it becomes, "We do this because This Is What We Do and What We Have Always Done"). I particularly wish people had a sense of intentionality behind the gift-giving. Personally I would prefer that people gave gifts at random times or just because someone they loved was feeling down or whatever, not because some society or other has dictated that they should give gifts to everyone on some specific day. But there are reasons the tradition developed, and I would be far more okay with it if people were actually thoughtful about it.
I figure some of our difference comes from your much dimmer view of the value of ceremony, but I have to say, it puzzles me. Ceremony is a means by which people create meaning. Creating meaning is important and spiritually enriching.
I think I know what you mean by "ceremony," but do you wanna elaborate and/or give me specific examples so I can better attempt to explain why I hold such a "dim view"?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: the defense, er, doesn't rest
Date: 2005-11-13 11:35 pm (UTC)I'm definitely big on not coddling children, but to me, this is about straight-up lying to children. To me, telling your children Santa brings them their Christmas presents is on par with telling them the stork brought them to the family as infants (though admittedly, Santa stories don't have the nasty repercussions of children having unsafe sex).
Do you remember how I had rage at Chesterton's "Old nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the fairies that dance on the grass" (from section 4 of Orthodoxy)? I think truth is powerful and wonderful. I think you can tell children about St. Nicholas and/or the various toy drives that go in the holiday season and teach them about giving to the less fortunate in a very powerful way. I think you can tell children about the longest night of the year and how people throughout history have told stories about light in the darkness (and my ideal Christmas celebration, were I to have one, would involve lots of white candles). I think stories can be powerful things even when presented as stories, but I don't agree with presenting stories as fact. Granted, religious stories are something of a grey area since not everyone believes Jesus rose from the dead, but I wouldn't argue that Christian parents shouldn't tell their children that he did as if it were fact. But I think as long as something is firmly in the religious section of discussion then as children grow they will see these as leaps of faith and agree or disagree with them as they see fit. I can understand if a child latches on to a story not wanting to say, "That's not true, that's just a story" unless active belief would somehow hurt them (like if a child read a story about someone who ate magic berries and gained the power to fly and then wanted to go eat berries off neighbors' bushes) but to actively present a myth as fact (and again, if the parent believes a story to be fact but other people don't -- i.e. Christian narratives of Jesus -- that's different because the parent does in fact believe the story to be true).
I know we have the spiritual/earthly argument a lot, but I honestly have no problem with Christmas (or any other winter holiday) being celebrated as more than just a purely spiritual endeavor. The feasting and candles that is so much a part of so many winter celebrations is very rooted in the earthly -- need for food and light and warmth -- and I can totally get behind that so long as it is done with intentionality. So much of what bothers me about traditional celebrations is that they become rote and meaningless (or at least, they become so separated from any original meaning and it becomes, "We do this because This Is What We Do and What We Have Always Done"). I particularly wish people had a sense of intentionality behind the gift-giving. Personally I would prefer that people gave gifts at random times or just because someone they loved was feeling down or whatever, not because some society or other has dictated that they should give gifts to everyone on some specific day. But there are reasons the tradition developed, and I would be far more okay with it if people were actually thoughtful about it.
I figure some of our difference comes from your much dimmer view of the value of ceremony, but I have to say, it puzzles me. Ceremony is a means by which people create meaning. Creating meaning is important and spiritually enriching.
I think I know what you mean by "ceremony," but do you wanna elaborate and/or give me specific examples so I can better attempt to explain why I hold such a "dim view"?