This is a very appropriate image you've selected. And, of course, great post as well.

Please; get a grip. Execrable? Horrible? Santa Claus? Do you hate Rudolph and Frosty too? I think your perspective is partly clouded by your religion, and both of us by our age. It doesn't matter what Santa means to adults; we don't believe in him. Kids young enough to believe in him, and who are the true judges of what Santa represents, don't even understand what crass materialism is. Sure they like him because he gives them gifts (i.e. charity, which you agree is a good thing when saints do it at least) but they also adore him because he represents goodness, kindness, and of course jollity. You must have seen one or two of the kids TV Christmas specials in your life; please name one Santa depiction that you object to.

Sorry man, but you could have made the case for St. Nick all on his own numerous merits without taking bitter biased swipes at Santa and what he supposedly represents.

I could explain things to Dave at length, but I'll leave my response as "Bah, humbug!"

Ha, honestly, funny response Ebene- I mean Zach. I'm a little disappointed; I was looking forward to a 'Why I Hate Santa' essay. Amalgam holiday's beget amalgam characters; you can blame our Christian conquerors for co-opting a perfectly fine solstice festival in part for that.

I already fear the flensing the Easter Bunny has coming to him in Spring.

I couldn't agree more and I appreciate the write-up. Children do not benefit from a fat man riding with flying reindeer giving gifts to every child in the world on one night. Instead, they benefit from the true Saint Nicholas. Regardless of your religious beliefs, one certainly acquires a better understanding of what it means to be charitable and to help others than by learning of talking snowmen and a reindeer with a red nose.

This, and so many other distortions of once revered stories, evince a shift in our society. Unfortunately, I think you are right in that it's too late to change anything. However, you can be damn sure that my kids will know the truth of what truly happened.

Thanks.

I don't see anything wrong with the Santa and gift-giving side of Christmas when done in moderation, as long as the Christian meaning of Christmas is presented as the bigger factor in the holiday. That's certainly how it was celebrated in my household.

I think it can be healthy for kids to believe in Santa. Children (and adults too) should have the experience of perceiving something "magical" in the world, if you'll pardon my Disneyesque choice of words.

I think it can be healthy for kids to believe in Santa. Children (and adults too) should have the experience of perceiving something "magical" in the world, if you'll pardon my Disneyesque choice of words.

Why?

Dave L, I don't think I would say that I dislike Santa. I don't put a lot of thought into him. I want to point out, though, that as worthwhile as it might be to accept that kids get excited all the time by things that are stupid and that this cannot be prevented (so it saves time to just accept it), if you think about it, the idea of Santa really is stupid. I'm not just saying that he isn't real, which we both know, or that he wasn't designed for adults -- I would also say that pretending that he does exist, or using him as a symbol of Christmas, doesn't do anything more for the world than any giving attention to any other fictional children's character who excites kids. Other than making kids happy for the brief period for which they think he exists, I cannot think of anything that the Santa character does for anyone, and yet he has become a dominant part of a major holiday, which (as a major holiday) would ideally be about something more than a couple of silly characters who only children care about. You wrote that to kids, Santa Claus represents kindness and jollity in addition to his well-known profession -- distributing brand-name toys that have been made by elves -- but I think they like him almost exclusively because he gives them presents (which is not charity -- giving gifts that were made possible by the labor of others, effortlessly distributed one day a year, in exchange for the love and respect of the recipients, is not charity), and also because of all of the magic that kids are told that he uses, rather than his goodness, kindness, and jollity. I don't think that kids like Santa Claus because that kids are inspired by his example. There are a lot of good, kind, jolly people in the world, but they do not fascinate kids as Santa does. Additionally, I think that an impassioned defense of Santa Claus and what he supposedly represents is necessarily at least as petty as you would find a throwaway comment about how he is execrable.

Finally, if you want an unfavorable depiction of Santa, look to the Rankin-Bass "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" television special. That Santa is an Ass, if we're allowed to say "ass" in these comments. That guy is a jerk. If you ever see a kid who has a birth defect, don't publicly declare that he has no future as a result of it, and then tell his dad, who is your employee, that he should be ashamed for having even sired the child. Just don't. I think I remember that the Santa learned his lesson before the end, but that should have been an easy lesson to learn.

I recognize that I did not properly edit this sentence: "I don't think that kids like Santa Claus because that kids are inspired by his example."

This is the best example I could find, but do not play it at work or in front of your kids (I think that some people would want to be warned about this, at least): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XOM31TpsJg&feature=related

Karl, there are countless things and characters that kids enjoy that are what we would term, 'stupid'. I don't see why you are putting the burden on Santa of 'doing more for the world'; how about just because it makes kids happy and excited. If you or Zach want to lament the 'crass materialism' of Christmas, go for it, but don't pretend that Santa is the symbol for that (I find that complaint especially ironic since gift-giving is one of the primary things that St Nick contributed to the Santa amalgam). I disagree that Santa is not charitable; no where does Santa demand the love and respect of the recipients of his gifts (unlike certain supposed deities I know), and I'd bet St Nick enjoyed those exact same things as the results of his charity. I find (the "real") St Nick's boxing the ears of heretics, calling for the destruction of temples, and his general intolerance of people who don't share his beliefs to be far more execrable that any of Santa's purported crimes; funny how that part is left out of this post of his praises.

I just object to the projection of everything 'bad' about Xmas onto Santa and the good to St Nick. You are correct about that line in Rudolph by Santa, but you are also correct that Santa does remedy that, and it's necessary to the point of that whole story, that 'misfits' belong and can contribute and are loved also.

"Additionally, I think that an impassioned defense of Santa Claus and what he supposedly represents is necessarily at least as petty as you would find a throwaway comment about how he is execrable"

Which makes your three comment reply, what, not petty? Believe me, my impassioned defense is tongue-in-cheek; sorry if that didn't come across.

Karl, there are countless things and characters that kids enjoy that are what we would term, 'stupid'. I don't see why you are putting the burden on Santa of 'doing more for the world'; how about just because it makes kids happy and excited.

The "burden" his higher because he has become one of the most dominant symbols (probably the most dominant) of our biggest holiday.

If you or Zach want to lament the 'crass materialism' of Christmas, go for it, but don't pretend that Santa is the symbol for that (I find that complaint especially ironic since gift-giving is one of the primary things that St Nick contributed to the Santa amalgam).

I don't see where I did lament "crass materialism," but I don't see why you have trouble seeing Santa Claus as a symbol of that. The bulk of that materialism (or at least the core of it) is the practice of giving gifts at Christmas, a practice with which Santa Claus is closely associated. These presents are often even given in his name (to other adults, under the name "Kris Kringle"), and children are taught that he actually exists.

I disagree that Santa is not charitable; no where does Santa demand the love and respect of the recipients of his gifts...

First, I doubt that we agree over the meaning of the word "charity." Giving presents to people can be charity, but it usually isn't. Second, Santa does not demand love and respect because he is not real, and he cannot demand anything. As a symbol, however, he is not depicted (and the depiction is all that matters, since he isn't a real person) working or sacrificing in order to create the gifts, or to sustain his gift-giving operation. Unlike in charity, there doesn't seem to be any effort involved in what he does -- he's just a lucky guy who has fame, magic, employees who apparently don't need to be paid (because what would he pay them with?), a flying vehicle, and a job that only requires him to work one night a year. People would pay money to do what he does, just for the fun of it. It isn't charity.

You are correct about that line in Rudolph by Santa, but you are also correct that Santa does remedy that, and it's necessary to the point of that whole story, that 'misfits' belong and can contribute and are loved also.

I disagree with you that the point of the story could not have been effectively made if someone who supposedly "represents goodness, kindness, and of course jollity" had not been depicted criticizing his employee for having a mutant son, thereby kicking the mutant son while he was down. Besides, I don't think that Santa ever did actually apologize to Rudolph.

Which makes your three comment reply, what, not petty? Believe me, my impassioned defense is tongue-in-cheek; sorry if that didn't come across.

No, I'm just having a good time. I think that this conversation is funny, because it's like a parody of every other comment thread at In the Agora. It did sound to me as though you were serious, because you wrote out an argument in response to a mere link, and expressed disappointment when Zach did not take it seriously, but it is possible that the text failed to carry your tone. I responded to your argument (though one of my comments was a correction, and one was a link to something amusing on YouTube) because it appeared to be an irritated, serious criticism of essentially nothing.

"No, I'm just having a good time. I think that this conversation is funny"

Agreed, and same attitude here.

"The "burden" his higher because he has become one of the most dominant symbols (probably the most dominant) of our biggest holiday."

Agreed to an extent, but exactly what is Santa 'dominating'? More dominant than Christmas trees? I would wager that Christ is the most dominant symbol for all of this blog's owners. I think a discussion of why we have Santa in every mall and parade and not Jesus or St Nick is a different discussion that has little to do with Santa.

"I don't see where I did lament "crass materialism," but I don't see why you have trouble seeing Santa Claus as a symbol of that."

Zach did lament that in his post. I can see how some people see Santa as a symbol of materialism; I can also see how some people see Jesus as a symbol of anti-gay bigotry, for example. Neither view is accurate or compelling in my opinion. Again, I don't see a difference between the gift-giving to children that Santa does as opposed to St Nick; it seems we are arbitrarily saying that one is charity and one not.

"The bulk of that materialism (or at least the core of it) is the practice of giving gifts at Christmas, a practice with which Santa Claus is closely associated."

Agreed, and a practice with which St Nick is also closely associated.

"Giving presents to people can be charity, but it usually isn't. Second, Santa does not demand love and respect because he is not real, and he cannot demand anything."

Sure, giving presents can also be an expression of one's love and affection for someone else (horrors!). You implied in your comment that Santa is doing something in exchange for love and respect, although I may have misinterpreted that.

"Unlike in charity, there doesn't seem to be any effort involved in what he does -- "

Huh? Santa keeps the list of whose naughty and nice and runs the whole North Pole show. You apparently don't view management as requiring any effort. The story in Rudolph covers a couple months at least (admittedly, that story has some continuity issues), where Santa is fretting about the elf songs and about getting fatter and the weather; it's not a one night operation. (your youtube link was hilarious, btw) And where did St Nick get all his money? The link above refers to him inheriting some of it; that required what effort, being born? What toil was St Nick performing; as a bishop, I'd guess that he was also charitable with the value/goods that others produced. I think that the image we have of St Nick today is also not what I would call 'a real person' either. Furthermore, I wonder if St Nick was so charitable toward people who did not believe in his god; there seems to be evidence quite to the contrary, which I find far more execrable and horrible than Santa's crimes. Santa just deals with naughty or nice and gives presents to all the children of the world, apparently regardless of what they believe.

"Besides, I don't think that Santa ever did actually apologize to Rudolph."

I just watched it last week, but I thought he did say something apologetic to him right before, 'Rudolph with your nose so bright, won't you guide my sleigh tonight', but I may be wrong.

"It did sound to me as though you were serious, because you wrote out an argument in response to a mere link,"

I don't think using the word 'mere' accurately portrays of the post. The whole post, 'Taking Back St Nick', is set up not just as praise for St Nick, but to contrast him with Zach's very negative perception of what Santa represents. I think gift-giving is a good thing; I think charity is a good thing. Thus my surprise at the words 'execrable' and 'horrible'. I find such a (mis-)perception petty and hysterical, but I think Zach's self-reference to him being a Scrooge and especially the perfect 'bah, humbug' response to be funny, so no, I'm not taking any of this very seriously. All in good fun for me.

Agreed to an extent, but exactly what is Santa 'dominating'?

I know that "Christmas" is not the kind of answer that you're looking for, but I don't know how to be more specific than that. He certainly is (fortunately) kept separate from the religious aspect of Christmas (most of the time), for those who observe it, and when my family gathers together at Christmas, I doubt that many of the adults are thinking about him. However, in the media and in many of the most notable traditions of Christmas, this character (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/testy/AdventCalendar/day19.html) is amazingly prominent. I'm honestly not sure whether I should be annoyed that Santa distracts from the most important parts of Christmas or thankful that he draws attention to Christmas as a whole, but depending on how much of this kind of thing (http://www.christmas-carols.net/carols/grandma-reindeer.html) displaces the worthwhile parts of the holiday, I can see why some people would eventually think of Santa and the things that are assoicated with him as execrable and horrible.

More dominant than Christmas trees?

Probably, but also, Christmas trees are a major symbol, but they are not characters, and I don't think the argument could be made by anyone that they are what Christmas is all "about" -- they may be prominent, but they are just decorations. They cannot command the attention that Santa does, even if they are as visible (or possibly more visible).

I would wager that Christ is the most dominant symbol for all of this blog's owners.

I would guess that they consider him to be more than a mere symbol of Christmas, but as much as I like In The Agora, there are media outlets that exist that have a greater impact than it does, and these bloggers may not be representative of all people who celebrate Christmas.

I think a discussion of why we have Santa in every mall and parade and not Jesus or St Nick is a different discussion that has little to do with Santa.

I think it is because those who make those decisions are uncomfortable, for a couple of reasons, putting a Jesus in parades or malls. Regardless of what the results of that discussion would be, the consequence is that Santa has become a dominant symbol of Christmas.

Zach did lament that in his post.

I agree with that, but not that I would lament it (though in excess, and when it displaces other, more meaningful and laudable aspects of the holiday, there is a risk that the whole exercise will become "stupid").

I can see how some people see Santa as a symbol of materialism; I can also see how some people see Jesus as a symbol of anti-gay bigotry, for example. Neither view is accurate or compelling in my opinion.

I don't agree with that analogy. It is easier to make the argument that a real person should not be considered a symbol for something with which he is associated than that something fictional, like (for example) an elf that is very loosely based on a saint, should not be a symbol of something. Someone who does not agree with something for which Jesus is used as a symbol can attempt to argue that Jesus did not stand for it or actually disagreed with it, and in support of that can reference what Jesus said and did, as recorded by others. The use of Jesus as a symbol for something is capable of being factually incorrect. Santa does not exist and has never existed, so he is a symbol of whatever he most is most commonly and notably associated with and used to represent.

Agreed, and a practice with which St Nick is also closely associated.

But the real St. Nicholas was less closely associated with the practice of giving VCRs or slippers or whatever to friends and family members, as opposed to giving less luxury-oriented gifts to strangers who need help.

Sure, giving presents can also be an expression of one's love and affection for someone else (horrors!). You implied in your comment that Santa is doing something in exchange for love and respect, although I may have misinterpreted that.

I believe so. Santa may not demand love and respect in exchange for toys, but that was not my point. My point was that his "charity" is overwhelmingly beneficial to him (and not just in a spiritual sense, or in that he enjoys making other people happy), and it doesn't seem to require anything of him. He may not demand love and respect, but he receives them, and he gets milk and cookies on top of that. Additionally, he gets to use magic, and he has access to what would be the equivalent of a private jet or a flying car -- only faster, and apparently capable of being maneuvered like a helicopter (because it can be landed on a space as small as the roof of a house). To carry it out, he has apparently unlimited means, free labor, and, again, the use of magic, so I don't think this takes too much out of him. Some sources even suggest that at the North Pole, Santa Claus is the state. If this were charity, I think charity would be more popular. Also, I do not think that there is anything wrong with giving luxury items to friends and family members, but I don't consider it to be charity. Unless the friends and family members are poor or sick or something, and the giver gives the gifts to them for that reason, I do not think it is defined as charity.

Huh? Santa keeps the list of whose naughty and nice and runs the whole North Pole show. You apparently don't view management as requiring any effort.

I wrote of the effort required of him because I think of charity as requiring some kind of sacrifice by the giver. It does not have to be a heroic sacrifice, but it should be greater than the foreseeable benefit to the giver. Little is written about the "naughty and nice" list, but I think the evidence leaves open the possibility that the magic leaves Santa Claus with no real work to do. I would call your attention to one passage, in particular, from the same source that tells us of the existence of this list:

"He sees you when you're sleeping
"He knows when you're awake
"He knows if you've been bad or good..."

Though this witness did not spell it out for us explicitly, I think it is implied that Santa Claus has some kind of magic-based (because it would have to be) omniscience. No ordinary human could accomplish this. Additionally, considering the number of names that would be on this list, I would think that Santa is necessarily magic-assisted in reading, re-reading and revising the list, or else you are correct that he puts "effort" into it -- indeed, the effort it would require would be Herculean, and most likely impossible.

Whatever work he does not accomplish through the use of magic, we also know, is something that an out-of-shape, elderly man would be able to handle. I suppose that could be effort, but I don't think his example is teaching children anything about charity.

And where did St Nick get all his money? The link above refers to him inheriting some of it; that required what effort, being born?

But when he gave away or spent his money, he had less of it. Santa Claus seems either to not need money at all, or to have unlimited funds.

I just watched it last week, but I thought he did say something apologetic to him right before, 'Rudolph with your nose so bright, won't you guide my sleigh tonight', but I may be wrong.

In either the YouTube link from before or in a different one that I was considering, that scene was included, and it was shown that Santa became annoyed with Rudolph's nose again just before he said that, after he supposedly had learned his lesson, but then immediately called it a "wonderful nose" when he realized that it could help him, then asked Rudolph for help.

I find such a (mis-)perception petty and hysterical, but I think Zach's self-reference to him being a Scrooge and especially the perfect 'bah, humbug' response to be funny, so no, I'm not taking any of this very seriously. All in good fun for me.

Okay. Depending on how long this conversation runs, I may eventually be tempted to say "Humbug!" myself, but I doubt that I'll do it -- I like Christmas.

"I'm honestly not sure whether I should be annoyed that Santa distracts from the most important parts of Christmas or thankful that he draws attention to Christmas"

I think that's where we differ, in that I don't think Santa distracts from what Christmas is all about at all, especially since as we agree he has no impact (other than the annoyance of his presence everywhere) on adults. I get the feeling that you imagine people at Christmas greedily ripping open their presents and deriving no other pleasure from being with friends and family. It's such a straightforward equation. Getting and giving presents, even in excess, is fun. Having fun with other people that you care about who are also having fun is pretty close to the best thing in the world. I see nothing illegitimate in the enjoyment you derive from gift giving and receiving, which from what I can glean is what Santa's offense is. I don't see that enjoying what we're terming 'materialism' necessarily means that the other 'good things' about Christmas are lessened; I can see the case for them being enhanced.

"The use of Jesus as a symbol for something is capable of being factually incorrect. Santa does not exist and has never existed, so he is a symbol of whatever he most is most commonly and notably associated with and used to represent."

It may be capable of being factually incorrect, but it is relatively easy to support some crappy things in Jesus' name. Santa Claus, real or not, is still a relatively stable character with stable attributes; I don't think there are many kids who seriously think Santa is just the guy who does Best Buy and McDonald's commercials in the winter.

"But the real St. Nicholas was less closely associated with the practice of giving VCRs or slippers or whatever to friends and family members, as opposed to giving less luxury-oriented gifts to strangers who need help."

But that's not an accurate depiction of Santa either. The fact that Santa is plastered on every ad and commercial now along with snowmen and reindeer and trees and endless other symbols of Christmas, and what you think therefore that implies about Santa, has zero effect on what kids believe about Santa, who he is, and what his attributes are. If I thought that his exploitation by every form of media and advertising was actually affecting what Santa means to kids, I'd encourage a similar blog post titled 'Taking Back Santa', but I think Santa's safely still regarded as being at the North Pole with the elves and reindeer et al.

"My point was that his "charity" is overwhelmingly beneficial to him (and not just in a spiritual sense, or in that he enjoys making other people happy), and it doesn't seem to require anything of him. He may not demand love and respect, but he receives them, and he gets milk and cookies on top of that. "

You'll have to explain how his charity is beneficial to him then, especially if you really believe that Santa is practically omniscient and superpowered (an assertion I most certainly do not agree with and to which I will attend with some Santa apologetics shortly). St Nick (we hope) didn't demand love and respect in exchange for his charity but I'm sure he also received it like Santa, and at least in the case where he's giving away his inheritance, like Santa he's giving away and receiving the adoration for something he did not earn (actually Santa as manager was indirectly involved in the creation of his gifts).

I think if we return to the early Santa scripture we were referencing, we will see that Santa is clearly limited in both knowledge and power. The depiction in Rankin Bass's Rudolph clearly shows a Santa who can't fly in a snowstorm, and apparently needs to receive weather reports to know what the weather's even going to be for his Christmas run. There's admittedly some magic going on, probably the same stuff that's in that old silk hat they found, but it seems limited.

"Unless the friends and family members are poor or sick or something, and the giver gives the gifts to them for that reason, I do not think it is defined as charity."

As long as we don't then call St Nick's giving gifts to children 'charity', we're consistent. I believe Santa essentially gives the 'nice' boys and girls what they want. If that's a luxury item for some spoiled (but nice) brat, fine; if it's a box of cookies or rice for a starving kid, fine. Would you consider the latter charity, as long as it required some kind of effort on Santa's part? (I would think flying in his magically-fast sleigh, navigating chimneys, and distributing toys would require some effort).

This is a challenge to keep all these 'character's straight. I believe St Nick supposedly resurrected some butchered and pickled children at some point, which depending on what one believes about divine intervention and powers, calls into question his 'charity' and 'effort', if lack of the latter disqualifies the former. If you'd like to create a holiday specifically and exclusively focused on charity (which I think we do agree should ideally be every day), I'm with ya. Again, this is what we get when we blend winter festivals and holidays and religious observances. I personally like that there is a mishmash.

I think that's where we differ, in that I don't think Santa distracts from what Christmas is all about at all, especially since as we agree he has no impact (other than the annoyance of his presence everywhere) on adults.

Isn't that begging the question? I think he is a distraction, but I don't know whether he does more over all to advance or hinder the more worthy parts of the holiday. I don't agree that he has no impact on adults, since it is adults who control the media who are responsible for his prominence there, and it is adults who tell children that he exists (and arrange for it to appear to be true).

I get the feeling that you imagine people at Christmas greedily ripping open their presents and deriving no other pleasure from being with friends and family.

How so?

I don't see that enjoying what we're terming 'materialism' necessarily means that the other 'good things' about Christmas are lessened; I can see the case for them being enhanced.

Have you ever heard one of those diamond commercials? Have you ever heard what some parents do to get that year's popular toy? I think I specifically wrote in one of my previous comments that I don't think that there is anything wrong with giving luxury items to friends and relatives, but I do think it can become a bad thing, and I do not think it is charity.

It may be capable of being factually incorrect, but it is relatively easy to support some crappy things in Jesus' name. Santa Claus, real or not, is still a relatively stable character with stable attributes; I don't think there are many kids who seriously think Santa is just the guy who does Best Buy and McDonald's commercials in the winter.

It is possible to do anything in anyone's name (unless the underlying act itself is impossible, or the person in whose name it is to be done does not have a name), so I'm missing the significance of the fact that it is possible to do bad things in Jesus' name. Things done in his name can still be objectively contrary to his teachings, while the Santa Claus character, regardless of his stability, can become a symbol of materialism if he becomes closely associated with it. Also, I do not agree (if this is what you were implying, as it appears) that he cannot be a symbol of materialism unless kids think he is "just" a spokesman for Best Buy and other businesses, or for materialism generally. A symbol can often stand for many things. Listening to any debate over the confederate flag will reveal that this is true.

But that's not an accurate depiction of Santa either. The fact that Santa is plastered on every ad and commercial now along with snowmen and reindeer and trees and endless other symbols of Christmas, and what you think therefore that implies about Santa, has zero effect on what kids believe about Santa, who he is, and what his attributes are. If I thought that his exploitation by every form of media and advertising was actually affecting what Santa means to kids, I'd encourage a similar blog post titled 'Taking Back Santa', but I think Santa's safely still regarded as being at the North Pole with the elves and reindeer et al.

I'm not sure why we're focusing on what kids think about him, now. The stories that are told to children are only part of what defines Santa's character. Children aren't even aware that what Santa gives them was actually bought by their parents. To them, he isn't a symbol at all, but a man -- which, of course, he is not. The nature of the Santa Claus distraction, and his impact as a symbol, concerns adults, too.

Also, the idea of "taking back Santa" helps to make one of my points from the previous comment -- how would you take him back? What determines which aspects of the Santa character are the true Santa and which aspects are false?

You'll have to explain how his charity is beneficial to him then, especially if you really believe that Santa is practically omniscient and superpowered (an assertion I most certainly do not agree with and to which I will attend with some Santa apologetics shortly).

If he really sees people when they're sleeping and knows when they're awake, and knows at all times whether they are being bad or good, I don't know how it can be disagreed that he is omniscient, though. I also do not believe that it would be possible for an omniscient person to process and record all of that information without the additional assistance of magic, so to that extent, yes, I would have to say that he is "superpowered."

His charity is beneficial to him, because it involves flying, eating a lot of cookies, laughing the whole time, using magic, and being loved for putting himself through all of this.

...and at least in the case where he's giving away his inheritance, like Santa he's giving away and receiving the adoration for something he did not earn (actually Santa as manager was indirectly involved in the creation of his gifts).

But when he gave it away, he lost something. He gave something up. If Santa would otherwise have kept those toys for himself, or could have directed the elves to produce different items that would please him, then there might be a similarity.

The depiction in Rankin Bass's Rudolph clearly shows a Santa who can't fly in a snowstorm, and apparently needs to receive weather reports to know what the weather's even going to be for his Christmas run. There's admittedly some magic going on, probably the same stuff that's in that old silk hat they found, but it seems limited.

Then it would seem that the sources are conflicted, but the source suggesting that the eye of Santa sees all is the same source that tells us that there is a list in the first place. If the author was embellishing, how can we trust that there is a list at all?

"Unless the friends and family members are poor or sick or something, and the giver gives the gifts to them for that reason, I do not think it is defined as charity." As long as we don't then call St Nick's giving gifts to children 'charity', we're consistent.

It would depend on the child. Some children are poor. If St. Nicholas gave something to a rich child, then I do not think it would have been charity.

I believe Santa essentially gives the 'nice' boys and girls what they want. If that's a luxury item for some spoiled (but nice) brat, fine; if it's a box of cookies or rice for a starving kid, fine. Would you consider the latter charity, as long as it required some kind of effort on Santa's part?

Probably, but I would be most likely to consider the latter charity if he were giving the cookies or rice to the poor child because the child is poor.

(I would think flying in his magically-fast sleigh, navigating chimneys, and distributing toys would require some effort).

If he does not have the aid of magic in doing it, then I would agree. I forget at what age they make pilots retire, but I would think that this would be difficult for an ordinary person of any age, and even more so for an old man. However, as I discussed in my previous comment, it isn't all about effort.

This is a challenge to keep all these 'character's straight. I believe St Nick supposedly resurrected some butchered and pickled children at some point, which depending on what one believes about divine intervention and powers, calls into question his 'charity' and 'effort', if lack of the latter disqualifies the former.

If he did that, I would not consider it "charity," but it is possible for someone to do some things that are not charity and to do other things that are not charity.

If you'd like to create a holiday specifically and exclusively focused on charity (which I think we do agree should ideally be every day), I'm with ya. Again, this is what we get when we blend winter festivals and holidays and religious observances. I personally like that there is a mishmash.

Though it may be a good idea, I am not calling for the creation of a holiday specifically and exclusively focused on charity. I am disagreeing that Santa's example teaches children anything about charity, and that children like him for being charitable (and like him, instead, because they themselves expect to receive presents from him).

I understand what you're saying about the winter festival/religious holiday combination, but as I put it in my previous comment, if the dancing Santa exuberance overtakes the meaningful parts of the holiday, there is a risk that the whole practice will become stupid, and that people will think about it and say, "Why are we doing this? Is this holiday about Frosty and Santa? I don't care about Frosty and Santa."

"I think he is a distraction, but I don't know whether he does more over all to advance or hinder the more worthy parts of the holiday. I don't agree that he has no impact on adults, "

Maybe I'm not clear then on why you think he is a distraction. I'm assuming it is because he seems to you and Zach to be the symbol of rampant gift-giving; so rampant that something that is generally positive, gift giving, is so overdone that it somehow obscures other positive aspects of Christmas. I think since gift-giving is a positive thing (and I find no real evidence in what we are using for 'sources' of Santa's attributes that he is excessive in the gift giving as far as bombarding one person with gifts), that Santa already represents worthy parts of the holiday. I'm assuming that you are not referring to the potential distraction to an adult who would have to hassle with making things look like there is a Santa to children.

If I agreed that this gift-giving is a distraction, then that exists whether or not Santa is used in commercials or not. If no commercials or media used the Santa figure and instead used snowmen and trees encouraging us to buy buy buy, we'd still have the same distraction from the worthy parts. I fail to see how gift-giving necessarily or often detracts from the other worthy parts of Christmas, and as I said, in most situations it enhances it. The fact that some parents go bananas to get the newest toy to make their child happy does not mean that the same parent is exalting materialism as the greatest good or anything; I'm sure many of these same parents give to charity, enjoy the time with family, etc.

"It is possible to do anything in anyone's name , so I'm missing the significance of the fact that it is possible to do bad things in Jesus' name. Things done in his name can still be objectively contrary to his teachings, while the Santa Claus character, regardless of his stability, can become a symbol of materialism if he becomes closely associated with it. "

The only point I'm making by comparing to Jesus is that just because, and I agree, 'it is possible to do anything in anyone's name', does not mean then that because people do that therefore this anyone accurately becomes a symbol for that anything. The fact that Jesus was a real person has hardly brought total consistency to Christianity, and therefore what Jesus is a symbol for, since it's inception. The question is the accuracy of the symbol. I find nothing in Santa's attributes that he encourages, or does himself, gift-giving to the ultimate excess, or that he in any way has called for the focus of the whole season to be giving gifts and materialism. I don't find the Phelps clan's use of Jesus as a symbol for anti-gay lunacy any more accurate or valid than the use of Santa by stores as, what you seem to be inferring, a call for excessive gift giving to the exclusion of all else.

I refer to what kids think about Santa because those are the aspects, fantasy or not, that I think accurately represent his character. Even if the concern is what adults think about him, then I think we're being inconsistent and need to include the Santas that ring the bells for Salvation Army donations, his harmless appearance in parades, etc, that are not negative depictions. I don't find the character of Santa as malleable as you appear to, or any more malleable than someone like Jesus. Frankly I find it much easier to find justification for Jesus symbolizing wretched things with the Bible (although I think that nearly all of these negative things that he could be and has been a symbol for is a result of ignoring many things that Jesus said to the contrary), then justifying that Santa is materialistic.

We take Santa back by agreeing on what sources we will accept as defining his character. I think 'Twas the Night Before Christmas' would have to be included, and I honestly don't know where the North Pole, flying reindeer, elves, etc originate. Regardless, somehow, when asked where Santa lives, most people know it's the North Pole. Not saying it would be easy, but I'd argue it's essentially what theologians have been doing in (re-)defining many religious figures for centuries.

"His charity is beneficial to him, because it involves flying, eating a lot of cookies, laughing the whole time, using magic, and being loved for putting himself through all of this."

You're making assumptions without evidence about Santa. We have no idea if Santa enjoys flying, and I think Santa ho-ho-ho's most all year long (Rudolph's Santa being the obvious exception). Again, I see no evidence that St Nick didn't also enjoy being loved, so I fail to see the difference, excepting that you believe that Santa didn't lose anything (even effort) by giving the gifts whereas St Nick did. Is charity not charity if the giver derived any pleasure or benefit from it? To the receiver of the charity I don't think it generally makes a lick of difference. Furthermore, St Nick may have well been charitable because he wanted to increase the appeal of Christianity, and not necessarily for purely altruistic motives.

"Then it would seem that the sources are conflicted, but the source suggesting that the eye of Santa sees all is the same source that tells us that there is a list in the first place. "

There is no evidence that Santa sees all. He apparently can only view humans and determine naughty or nice. No evidence that he can see into the past or future, for instance, or even that he knows specifically what was done that was naughty or nice. Rankin Bass's, 'Santa Claus is Coming To Town' (I had to wiki it to refresh my memory), depicts a quite human Kris Kringle, and explains that Kris receives a crystal ball of some kind from some winter wizard that allows him to see whose naughty and nice. The fact that he has to check the list twice would also indicate that he is not as omniscient as he may first seem. There's no evidence that Santa has anything to do with the magic of reindeer flying; it appears that the reindeer are magical on their own. I see him as again the manager, not the god, of the North Pole operation.

"Probably, but I would be most likely to consider the latter charity if he were giving the cookies or rice to the poor child because the child is poor."

Fair enough, but from Santa's point of view, giving gifts to even rich kids is still kind; it's debatable whether it's better to be uncharitably kind or unkindly charitable.

"I forget at what age they make pilots retire, but I would think that this would be difficult for an ordinary person of any age, and even more so for an old man."

True, but now you've brought up another possibility, that Santa, if he was selfish, would just like to retire. If so, then all of his gift giving, even to the rich, starts looking more charitable.

"If he did that, I would not consider it "charity," but it is possible for someone to do some things that are not charity and to do other things that are not charity."

Exactly, and that applies to Santa as well as St Nick.

"I am disagreeing that Santa's example teaches children anything about charity, and that children like him for being charitable (and like him, instead, because they themselves expect to receive presents from him)."

Again, the same as St Nick; children also liked St Nick because he gave presents to them. They probably also liked him because he was most likely a kind, good person (like Santa). Santa can teach children that it is as good to give gifts as well as receive them (look at how jolly it makes Santa), and that it is good to be a nice, kind person. I find those to be positive attributes, even if they are not charitable, and am again perplexed at how someone makes the odd, unjustified leap that Santa is horrible, even if he under certain definitions is not as charitable as St Nick supposedly was. As I've said, the real St Nick also introduces other problematic stories that seem to lack charity and/or kindness that Santa is not burdened with.

I simply don't think it's possible for dancing Santa exuberance to overtake the holiday. Christmas in our lifetimes has never been just about Santa or Jesus or anything else, except general kindness.

Maybe I'm not clear then on why you think he is a distraction. I'm assuming it is because he seems to you and Zach to be the symbol of rampant gift-giving; so rampant that something that is generally positive, gift giving, is so overdone that it somehow obscures other positive aspects of Christmas. I think since gift-giving is a positive thing (and I find no real evidence in what we are using for 'sources' of Santa's attributes that he is excessive in the gift giving as far as bombarding one person with gifts), that Santa already represents worthy parts of the holiday. If I agreed that this gift-giving is a distraction, then that exists whether or not Santa is used in commercials or not. If no commercials or media used the Santa figure and instead used snowmen and trees encouraging us to buy buy buy, we'd still have the same distraction from the worthy parts.

That conflates two different objections to Santa Claus: that he is a symbol of materialism and an excessive preoccupation with buying gifts, and that he displaces other parts of the holiday. You are right that when Santa Claus appears in commercials, Santa Claus is not the distraction -- he just happens to be the symbol of something that can become ugly.

I fail to see how gift-giving necessarily or often detracts from the other worthy parts of Christmas, and as I said, in most situations it enhances it. The fact that some parents go bananas to get the newest toy to make their child happy does not mean that the same parent is exalting materialism as the greatest good or anything; I'm sure many of these same parents give to charity, enjoy the time with family, etc.

Just because gift-giving does not displace charity and other positive things altogether does not mean that it does not displace it at all. Also, the potential problem with materialism is not just that it displaces things that are more worthwhile. Materialism in excess can be an evil of its own.

The question is the accuracy of the symbol. I find nothing in Santa's attributes that he encourages, or does himself, gift-giving to the ultimate excess, or that he in any way has called for the focus of the whole season to be giving gifts and materialism.

My point is that because Santa is not a real person, the symbol cannot be objectively inaccurate in the same way that invoking Jesus' name to promote the opposite of his message (Phelps' beliefs) can be. The message of a real person can be perverted by other people, and that person's credibility can be abused by other people, and in some cases, it is not even clear whether a belief that is attributed to Jesus (or any real person) is objectively right or wrong. As subjective as this evaluation of the truth may be, however, objective facts exist, and it is possible for an interpretation to be right or wrong. In the case of Santa Claus, however, you say that he hasn't called for a focus on materialism, but what has he called for and what could he ever call for? Along the same lines, was Uncle Sam ever actually in favor of the draft? Of course not, because he doesn't exist, but even though the draft isn't a core aspect of the character, there was a time when it would have been fair for someone to call him a symbol of the draft, because of the association of the fictional character with the draft.

I refer to what kids think about Santa because those are the aspects, fantasy or not, that I think accurately represent his character. Even if the concern is what adults think about him, then I think we're being inconsistent and need to include the Santas that ring the bells for Salvation Army donations, his harmless appearance in parades, etc, that are not negative depictions.

That's fine, but a symbol can be a symbol for many things at once.

I don't find the character of Santa as malleable as you appear to, or any more malleable than someone like Jesus. Frankly I find it much easier to find justification for Jesus symbolizing wretched things with the Bible (although I think that nearly all of these negative things that he could be and has been a symbol for is a result of ignoring many things that Jesus said to the contrary), then justifying that Santa is materialistic.

To the extent that there are objections to the Santa character, I would say that they are more along the lines that he is a silly, sugary distraction than that the character itself is materialistic. His function as a symbol of materialism concerns the use of the character, and the things that he is associated with. I do think that he is more malleable than Jesus, because there is no definitive source to define him, even if that source can be misinterpreted, and only kids believe that he exists, so the use of him as a symbol for something cannot be objectively wrong.

We take Santa back by agreeing on what sources we will accept as defining his character.

I should clarify that when I questioned how that argument would be made, I did not doubt that an argument could be made for which things he should not symbolize. However, I don't think a valid argument can be made that he cannot symbolize certain things, looking to the character itself for a concrete answer to the question of what he represents. I should also add that this is not only especially true of fictional characters -- it is even more true of fictional characters who have developed and evolved over centuries, as opposed to characters created by a single author at a specific point in time.

I think 'Twas the Night Before Christmas' would have to be included, and I honestly don't know where the North Pole, flying reindeer, elves, etc originate. Regardless, somehow, when asked where Santa lives, most people know it's the North Pole. Not saying it would be easy, but I'd argue it's essentially what theologians have been doing in (re-)defining many religious figures for centuries.

We can choose texts to define who Santa Claus is, but if we do, we would be deciding what kind of symbol Santa would be, in disregard of the current usage of him, rather than observing what he is associated with. I could agree with you in wanting him to be a symbol of something better than grown men and women fighting each other for a popular toy, but it is possible for someone or something to symbolize things that are unpleasant.

You're making assumptions without evidence about Santa. We have no idea if Santa enjoys flying, and I think Santa ho-ho-ho's most all year long (Rudolph's Santa being the obvious exception).

At the very least, he employs magic, if he does not possess magic himself. I don't know whether you want to get into the whole "all over the world in a single night," "fat man in a chimney," or "a world's worth of presents in a single sleigh" issues, but I think that they would lean decisively in favor of the conclusion that Santa uses magic extensively, even if he isn't a sorcerer. Also, I can't imagine him not enjoying flying, but he doesn't seem to dislike it, at least, or he wouldn't laugh so much the whole way.

Again, I see no evidence that St Nick didn't also enjoy being loved, so I fail to see the difference, excepting that you believe that Santa didn't lose anything (even effort) by giving the gifts whereas St Nick did. Is charity not charity if the giver derived any pleasure or benefit from it?

The question is not whether charity is charity if the giver derives any pleasure or benefit from it, but whether charity is still charity if it is so foreseeably positive for the giver, with so little detriment to the giver, that he probably would have done it anyway, if he could have, even if it hadn't helped someone who is poor.

To the receiver of the charity I don't think it generally makes a lick of difference.

That's the way to look at it if we're measuring someone's impact through charity, but not if we're trying to measure the virtue that brings people to help others, even though there is nothing in it for themselves. I think that it is the virtue that is concerned when we ask what lessons Santa Claus and St. Nicholas offer. I'm sure that the lesson isn't about impact, since no one can do what Santa supposedly does -- it's about the personal qualities that lead a person to act selflessly.

Furthermore, St Nick may have well been charitable because he wanted to increase the appeal of Christianity, and not necessarily for purely altruistic motives.

That sounds like speculation.

There is no evidence that Santa sees all. He apparently can only view humans and determine naughty or nice. No evidence that he can see into the past or future, for instance, or even that he knows specifically what was done that was naughty or nice.

It may be a limited omniscience, but any omniscience is actually pretty significant, and raises questions about the full extent of his abilities. My impression was that he watches everyone, all the time, and as a result is able to decide whether they are "naughty or nice." Otherwise, how could it be said that he sees people when they're sleeping? I don't think kids are "naughty" while they are asleep. He may not be able to see into the future, but his ability to see what people are doing in the present sounds pretty substantial, to me. I don't know whether a crystal ball is involved, but if "The Santa Clause" is "canon," he may just know which people are good and which people are bad. I don't know how an ordinary human would be able to process all the information coming from that crystal ball, anyway.

I see him as again the manager, not the god, of the North Pole operation.

In Rudolph, he lives in a castle, so I would think that he is more of a monarch. I will concede that he is not much of a god.

[F]rom Santa's point of view, giving gifts to even rich kids is still kind; it's debatable whether it's better to be uncharitably kind or unkindly charitable.

He would be correct to think that, but it doesn't make the giving of gifts to rich kids a form of charity. Some things that are nice are not charity.

True, but now you've brought up another possibility, that Santa, if he was selfish, would just like to retire. If so, then all of his gift giving, even to the rich, starts looking more charitable.

To the rich, that would not appear more charitable, because the definition of charity does not allow it. If Santa Claus' job were hard on him because he is an old man, that would help to demonstrate the selflessness of his actions, and reinforce the argument that his actions are charity. I do not believe that someone in his condition would be able to do it at all, however, without magic, which might make the whole job effortless.

Also, I neglected to make the point that his actions could be reckless, if he is, in fact, no longer in a condition to safely fly a vehicle. People complain about elderly drivers, and whether that is fair or not, some states (including Indiana, I think) impose higher requirements on people over a certain age when they try to renew their driver's licenses (I think it might be a driving test). If it is becoming difficult for him to fly, he might be putting lives at risk by trying to land (essentially) a flying car on top of the house of every child who celebrates Christmas.

Exactly, and that applies to Santa as well as St Nick.

My objection is to the idea that even Santa's core operation is charity.

"I am disagreeing that Santa's example teaches children anything about charity, and that children like him for being charitable (and like him, instead, because they themselves expect to receive presents from him)." Again, the same as St Nick; children also liked St Nick because he gave presents to them. They probably also liked him because he was most likely a kind, good person (like Santa). Santa can teach children that it is as good to give gifts as well as receive them (look at how jolly it makes Santa), and that it is good to be a nice, kind person. I find those to be positive attributes, even if they are not charitable, and am again perplexed at how someone makes the odd, unjustified leap that Santa is horrible, even if he under certain definitions is not as charitable as St Nick supposedly was. As I've said, the real St Nick also introduces other problematic stories that seem to lack charity and/or kindness that Santa is not burdened with.

I paired those two things together (that Santa's example does not teach children about charity and that children like Santa only because he gives them presents) not to set forth a single, united summary of my argument, but as a reminder of where this discussion began, to respond to the suggestion that I would prefer a holiday that is exclusively about charity.

I simply don't think it's possible for dancing Santa exuberance to overtake the holiday. Christmas in our lifetimes has never been just about Santa or Jesus or anything else, except general kindness.

It cannot push the rest out altogether, but it can displace it to such a degree that too much of Christmas is consumed by things that are trivial or "stupid" and to the point that a large number of people are uncomfortable mentioning Jesus, at least in many settings.

"That conflates two different objections to Santa Claus: that he is a symbol of materialism and an excessive preoccupation with buying gifts, and that he displaces other parts of the holiday. "

I conflate them because I've been under the impression that one has led to the other. If you're just saying that the depiction of Santa and the other elements of that story alone is displacing other parts of the holiday, then I think you are on far shakier ground. Unless you assign the responsibility or symbolism for the excessive materialism of Christmas to Santa, which is exactly what I disagree with, then you are left with the true Santa that I have been defending, which would be much harder to attack. If it's not the supposed materialism of Santa that displaces other parts of the holiday, and that also ignores numerous other positive attibutes of Santa, then why does Santa displace these things and not Christmas trees and secular Christmas carols, which are easily just as, and I think more, prevalent?

"Also, the potential problem with materialism is not just that it displaces things that are more worthwhile. Materialism in excess can be an evil of its own."

I think you honestly have to go to absurd lengths for the kind of materialism we are discussing to become an "evil". This is especially the case with Christmas, because all this excessive materialism is for gifts for other people, usually not for one's own self. You haven't argued that gift giving alone is negative, and I've already made a case for the positives, and again, this seems to hypocritically always be positive when St Nick was doing it.

"My point is that because Santa is not a real person, the symbol cannot be objectively inaccurate in the same way that invoking Jesus' name to promote the opposite of his message (Phelps' beliefs) can be. "

I understand your point, but I don't think Jesus is the best example to compare him to in this situation. We are left with more writings and information about Jesus than Santa, but Jesus is no more accessible now to answer questions about what's been written about him than Santa. Several gospels were essentially rejected for inclusion in the Bible (the Apocrypha I believe it's called) I assume because the depictions of Jesus are not considered accurate; I don't see that just because Santa is a fictional figure that he can accurately symbolize anything we choose. If superpowers and magic invalidate charity for you, then I assume you agree that Jesus, the ultimate magical character, was therefore not charitable?
Uncle Sam isn't the best example as we have very little to work with, but it's not like we can't say that certain things are inconsistent or that a symbol is inaccurate with even fictional characters. There's lots of drug paraphenalia like bongs or bowls for smoking pot that have cartoon characters on them and I've seen hits of LSD with Bugs Bunny printed on them; can we then say that Bugs symbolizes drug use? Slapping his face on a product doesn't mean that he's accurately a symbol of whatever that thing represents. When the character of Homer Simpson passes into public domain and he's used to sell broccoli, is Homer then a symbol of healthy eating?

"but what has he called for and what could he ever call for? "

Santa has called for 'Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night', and he does represent, at least to children, kindness and goodwill.

"That's fine, but a symbol can be a symbol for many things at once."

The good things that Santa represents dwarf the negative things he supposedly symbolizes; is it fair then to call him horrible because we focus on these negative things tenuously connected to him? Is it accurate for me to call Jesus a symbol for something based on how 'South Park' depicts him, or how the Infant Gospel of Thomas depicts him for that matter? You would probably say no and then point to how Jesus is depicted in the Bible. I'm saying no to this assignment of evil materialism to Santa and pointing to how he is usually depicted outside of commercials as my canon.

"I would say that they are more along the lines that he is a silly, sugary distraction "

He's largely a character for children, which are almost all silly. And harmless. We also have a sugary depiction of St Nick that does not take into account the negative bits of his life.

"However, I don't think a valid argument can be made that he cannot symbolize certain things, looking to the character itself for a concrete answer to the question of what he represents"

We've already settled that ultimately anything can be a symbol for anything. Given the sheer volume of text in the Bible, and the fact that specific statements in the Bible if taken alone and out of context of the whole Bible seemingly contradict each other and are most certainly open to large amounts of interpretation, I find the number of things that Jesus cannot accurately represent, good and evil, smaller than Santa's. There are just more people who would object to Jesus being used to symbolize something that they interpret is not in his character.

"The question is not whether charity is charity if the giver derives any pleasure or benefit from it, but whether charity is still charity if it is so foreseeably positive for the giver, with so little detriment to the giver, "

You have offered a lot of speculation on what is so positive for Santa as giver, but the only one I can absolutely agree with is that he does receive love and respect, unasked for. Just like St Nick. St Nick apparently inherited a nice chunk of money; I'm sure he could have given away significant amounts of it with it having little detriment to him also. I've checked numerous definitions of the word 'charity' and I'm having trouble finding one that defines it as narrowly as you do; all the definitions I've read apply very well to Santa.

"I think that it is the virtue that is concerned when we ask what lessons Santa Claus and St. Nicholas offer"

I think kindness is a virtue that rivals charity.

"It may be a limited omniscience"

There is no such thing.

"it doesn't make the giving of gifts to rich kids a form of charity. Some things that are nice are not charity."

Agreed. That just makes Santa charitable AND nice.

"I do not believe that someone in his condition would be able to do it at all, however, without magic, which might make the whole job effortless."

Again, speculation. Your presumption is that the limited magic Santa employs is at no effort to him; I don't think there's much evidence for that, or against it to be fair. The concerns about the safety of his elderly driving are valid, but I can't help but wonder if the nine reindeer are helping him out; I'm not sure if they'd willingly crash even if Santa dozed off at the reins or ordered them specifically to crash.

"It cannot push the rest out altogether, but it can displace it to such a degree that too much of Christmas is consumed by things that are trivial or "stupid" and to the point that a large number of people are uncomfortable mentioning Jesus, at least in many settings."

That's a new argument for me; that Santa is now somehow making people uncomfortable mentioning Jesus. I don't think gift giving, Santa's number one attibute, is trivial or stupid. If you live in the US, I find the concern that people are uncomfortable mentioning Jesus to be somewhat laughable, since Christians significantly outnumber all the other religious and non-religious put together. Chances are in a random setting that you are going to have a lot of people who will talk about Jesus with you if you want.

I conflate them because I've been under the impression that one has led to the other. If you're just saying that the depiction of Santa and the other elements of that story alone is displacing other parts of the holiday, then I think you are on far shakier ground. Unless you assign the responsibility or symbolism for the excessive materialism of Christmas to Santa, which is exactly what I disagree with, then you are left with the true Santa that I have been defending, which would be much harder to attack.

My point has been that there is no true Santa, and for that reason, he can become a symbol of things his admirers do not agree with.

If it's not the supposed materialism of Santa that displaces other parts of the holiday, and that also ignores numerous other positive attibutes of Santa, then why does Santa displace these things and not Christmas trees and secular Christmas carols, which are easily just as, and I think more, prevalent?

Secular Christmas carols are capable of displacing the important parts of the holiday, and they can also do this to a repugnant and excessive extent. That is why I linked to that song about somebody's grandmother getting mauled by a reindeer a few comments ago. We did not discuss them outright because we were talking about Santa, so it would have been off-topic (and time-consuming) to make a list of everything that could displace the important parts of Christmas, (without making a contribution of its own that makes its inclusion a net positive). Christmas trees have a very limited ability to displace the important parts of Christmas because they are only decorations. It would be hard to have a discussion of what Christmas trees really stand for. They stand for nothing. They just stand.

I think you honestly have to go to absurd lengths for the kind of materialism we are discussing to become an "evil". This is especially the case with Christmas, because all this excessive materialism is for gifts for other people, usually not for one's own self. You haven't argued that gift giving alone is negative, and I've already made a case for the positives, and again, this seems to hypocritically always be positive when St Nick was doing it.

As I think we have discussed before, St. Nicholas' gift-giving (at least the most notable of his gift-giving -- I'm sure he gave gifts, sometimes, that were not charity) was charity, unlike Santa's. It is difficult for me to imagine charity becoming materialistic.

I do not believe that gift-giving, or even materialism, in general is an evil, but I have already given examples of how it can become a bad thing. I don't think it would be possible to add up the pros and cons for a definitive answer on whether materialism is good or bad, but I would definitely agree with people who say that it can go too far.

I understand your point, but I don't think Jesus is the best example to compare him to in this situation. We are left with more writings and information about Jesus than Santa, but Jesus is no more accessible now to answer questions about what's been written about him than Santa. Several gospels were essentially rejected for inclusion in the Bible (the Apocrypha I believe it's called) I assume because the depictions of Jesus are not considered accurate; I don't see that just because Santa is a fictional figure that he can accurately symbolize anything we choose. If superpowers and magic invalidate charity for you, then I assume you agree that Jesus, the ultimate magical character, was therefore not charitable?

I don't think that his use of abilities that ordinary people do not have made him charitable (unless those abilities came with a cost of their own, requiring a form of sacrifice that is also extraordinary). He did not use his powers in everything he did, though, and though I cannot immediately think of a specific example of Jesus giving to the poor without the use of divine powers, I think he did. Also, though he was charitable, I think that his association with charity is more the result of the fact that he told people to be charitable, not just that he was charitable himself. To answer your question, though, yes, I believe he was charitable.

Uncle Sam isn't the best example as we have very little to work with, but it's not like we can't say that certain things are inconsistent or that a symbol is inaccurate with even fictional characters. There's lots of drug paraphenalia like bongs or bowls for smoking pot that have cartoon characters on them and I've seen hits of LSD with Bugs Bunny printed on them; can we then say that Bugs symbolizes drug use? Slapping his face on a product doesn't mean that he's accurately a symbol of whatever that thing represents. When the character of Homer Simpson passes into public domain and he's used to sell broccoli, is Homer then a symbol of healthy eating?

It depends on the strength of the association. This is the first time I had heard of Bugs Bunny appearing on that kind of product, and I don't think that the association of the two is widespread or well-known. It also depends on how adverse the association is to the best-known qualities of the character. When I say that a fictional character is free to become associated with all kinds of things, I do not mean that the character could become associated with anything at any time -- I only mean that there is no "true" character appearing in authoritative sources whose failure to exhibit a certain quality can be said to make the association inappropriate or inaccurate. (This underscores my earlier point that a character created by a single author may be less malleable than a character who has evolved over time. The lack of a "true" character appearing in an authoritative source is more true of Santa Claus than of Homer Simpson, since Santa has evolved and developed over the centuries, while Homer has been created and developed by a single studio under the watch of Matt Groening over a mere 20 years; if we want to know who Homer Simpson is, we can watch The Simpsons, while if we want to know who Santa Claus is, his evolution over the centuries and the conflicting, more recent sources may lead us to correctly believe that his character is more malleable.) Broccoli actually killed Homer in one of the Halloween episodes (and then killed his ghost when it tried to eat the same piece of broccoli), and his preference for donuts, beer, and floor-pie (and his obesity) are some of the best-known qualities of the character, so he would have to undergo a pretty significant evolution in the public domain before anyone would associate him with broccoli, even if he did appear on a broccoli package, for some reason. If such an evolution were to take place, maybe I would be able to see Homer as a symbol of broccoli, but that is difficult to imagine now because a single, authoritative source does exist, so for now, it is hard to envision him as someone who could like broccoli. Santa, on the other hand, is associated primarily with his gift-giving operation, which adults realize is a mask for parents' own purchasing and gift-giving. To the extent that this spills over into excess materialism, it would not be a stretch at all for Santa to be associated with it. Additionally, in Santa's case, once that connection exists, we cannot say, "But the true Santa does not believe in that." There is no true Santa, nor is there a definitive Santa, and to ask what the character would think of what he is a symbol for is beside the point, as long as it is reasonably possible to reconcile the character with what he is associated with.

Santa has called for 'Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night', and he does represent, at least to children, kindness and goodwill.

Would you agree that if the character were real, he would also have said things other than this? If there were a single, authoritative source exclusively establishing who Santa Claus is, we might be able to conclude that in the absence of his explicit endorsement of materialism, he cannot be a symbol of materialism. I don't see how it can be that a character who has developed over centuries by all kinds of creative forces (tradition, writers of children's books, creators of television specials and movies, people who are in advertising), and used as a symbol for the Christmas gift-giving tradition in general, at least, can't become a symbol for the excess that he has not explicitly endorsed, even though he is a mask for it.

The good things that Santa represents dwarf the negative things he supposedly symbolizes; is it fair then to call him horrible because we focus on these negative things tenuously connected to him?

Is it accurate for me to call Jesus a symbol for something based on how 'South Park' depicts him, or how the Infant Gospel of Thomas depicts him for that matter? You would probably say no and then point to how Jesus is depicted in the Bible. I'm saying no to this assignment of evil materialism to Santa and pointing to how he is usually depicted outside of commercials as my canon.

Again, Jesus actually walked on the earth. His depiction in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas would present greater difficulties than his depiction in South Park, but the question would still be whether the symbol is true or false. No source on Santa Claus is capable of being either true or false, so there can't be a "true" Santa that does not include materialism. There is a "true" Jesus, though people disagree over what is actually true of him.

Also, I have not been writing only about how Santa is depicted in commercials when I have written about what he has come to symbolize. Mostly, I am thinking of his association with the gift-giving Christmas tradition, and also its excess.

He's largely a character for children, which are almost all silly. And harmless. We also have a sugary depiction of St Nick that does not take into account the negative bits of his life.

Yes, he is a silly character for children, and that is why it is unfortunate that he plays such a role in Christmas, instead of something that has something to offer to adults, or something for children other than the excitement of being given gifts by someone who uses magic.

We've already settled that ultimately anything can be a symbol for anything. Given the sheer volume of text in the Bible, and the fact that specific statements in the Bible if taken alone and out of context of the whole Bible seemingly contradict each other and are most certainly open to large amounts of interpretation, I find the number of things that Jesus cannot accurately represent, good and evil, smaller than Santa's. There are just more people who would object to Jesus being used to symbolize something that they interpret is not in his character.

Part of this I discussed earlier in this comment. My other response to this is that even though you say that we have settled that anything can be a symbol for anything, haven't you continued to make an argument about what Santa really stands for?

You have offered a lot of speculation on what is so positive for Santa as giver, but the only one I can absolutely agree with is that he does receive love and respect, unasked for.

He definitely uses magic extensively, and has the equivalent of a flying car.

Just like St Nick. St Nick apparently inherited a nice chunk of money; I'm sure he could have given away significant amounts of it with it having little detriment to him also.

I don't know how much of his inheritance he gave away, but one thing I know for certain is that when he gave away money, he had less as a result. What does Santa Claus lose?

I've checked numerous definitions of the word 'charity' and I'm having trouble finding one that defines it as narrowly as you do; all the definitions I've read apply very well to Santa.

At Dictionary.com, which brings together definitions from various sources, the only definition for charity that I have seen that doesn't require the giving to be to someone poor or otherwise in need is a synonymn for mercy (and also one that states that it is a feminine given name).

"It may be a limited omniscience" There is no such thing.

Well, we're talking about Santa Claus. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that he is supposed to have some form of clairvoyance, particularly considering that it has already been attributed to him. I think that my choice of words came from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_person_limited_omniscient

Agreed. That just makes Santa charitable AND nice.

Actually, I agree that he is nice, but I don't think he sets any kind of example in the area of charity.

Again, speculation. Your presumption is that the limited magic Santa employs is at no effort to him; I don't think there's much evidence for that, or against it to be fair. The concerns about the safety of his elderly driving are valid, but I can't help but wonder if the nine reindeer are helping him out; I'm not sure if they'd willingly crash even if Santa dozed off at the reins or ordered them specifically to crash.

Probably not, but I think that the magic is more inference than speculation. If a fictional, magical character does something that a real person couldn't do, he must be using magic.

That's a new argument for me; that Santa is now somehow making people uncomfortable mentioning Jesus.

The existence and use of alternatives to mentioning Jesus, and his gradual displacement, has helped people to become uncomfortable with it, when otherwise, they would have been used to it.

I don't think gift giving, Santa's number one attibute, is trivial or stupid.

I think that it is trivial, but not stupid. "Grandma got run over by a reindeer" is stupid. That show with the two misers is stupid.

If you live in the US, I find the concern that people are uncomfortable mentioning Jesus to be somewhat laughable, since Christians significantly outnumber all the other religious and non-religious put together. Chances are in a random setting that you are going to have a lot of people who will talk about Jesus with you if you want.

There are a lot of Christians, but that doesn't mean that they are comfortable talking about Jesus, or about the fact that they are Christians. Some are, of course, but I know a lot of Christians who are uncomfortable even saying "Merry Christmas" unless they know for a fact that the person to whom they are speaking celebrates Christmas. I did not buy into that whole "War on Christmas" thing two years ago, but I do think it is surprising how little the traditions of Christmas have to do with Jesus. I think that they can be divided into four categories: those that directly concern Jesus, those that are relevant or complementary to Jesus' teachings but that can be separated from Jesus, those that don't have much to do with Jesus at all but probably enhance the holiday without raising significant questions about what Christmas is "about," and those that are more likely to distract people than to reinforce the holiday, depending on how much attention they receive. I see mostly the third and fourth categories, with a fair amount of the second. I see very little of the first. The only major Christmas traditions that that directly concern Jesus and that I can think of off the top of my head are nativity scenes and going to church. There's also the charitable stuff that takes place in December, which has something do do with Jesus, of course, but which I would place in the second category. Just because there are a lot of Christians around doesn't mean that a holiday named after Christ will focus any attention on him. The possibility, however, that something called "Nestor the Long-Eared Donkey" may be the most prominent Jesus-related Christmas show should be staggering. I think it's about a donkey character helping Jesus to be born.

I'm not sure how unusual this is. The traditions for a lot of holidays do not focus attention on their alleged purpose. Eating hamburgers doesn't have much to do with labor, just as hamburgers and race cars don't have much to do with a memorial day, hamburgers and fireworks don't have much to do with independence, and skiing doesn't have much to do with Martin Luther King, Jr. or former presidents of the United States. I still think Santa is "sugary," though, in the sense that a small dose might be nice but that too much of it will make people sick.

Also, I put more time into this than I should have. I don't want to end the discussion now that I have the last word, but please understand if my future responses are shorter. You may be thinking the same thing, actually.

"Also, I put more time into this than I should have. I don't want to end the discussion now that I have the last word, but please understand if my future responses are shorter. You may be thinking the same thing, actually."

Ha, yes I was thinking that about 3 comments ago, but it's a light-hearted conversation, and I never intended for the posts to be as long as they actually have been; kinda grew on their own.

You've touched on a couple points that I'll try to respond to more generally. I see your point concerning the 'true' Santa. I do still believe that it is difficult to pin down the 'true' Jesus to much greater a level of specificity than Santa's. If the evolution of Santa gradually turns him into a lizard at the bottom of the ocean, at some point it's more accurate to separate these characters; similar to how this post dilineates between Santa and St Nick (recognizing the difficulties that you are correct about, that we are comparing 'real' people and fictional ones). You make a good point about the difficulty in nailing down the true Santa as far as there being no single definitive source (and side-noting that the 'true' Jesus today is also a product of multiple authors). Despite this lack of a source, the questions, 'Where does Santa live?', 'Who makes Santa's toys?', 'What color is Santa's suit?', have definitive answers that everyone knows. Since there are no tales of Santa encouraging excessive gift-giving, I disagree then that he is accurately the personification of materialism. There is justification for anti-gay bigotry in Christianity using the Bible, depending on how one interprets the few lines that actually address homosexuality and how one interprets how one should treat unrepentant sinners, and although I agree with those who think that attitude is inconsistent with Jesus, it most certainly is, "reasonably possible to reconcile the character with what he is associated with".

I can also agree with your statement that Santa is not primarily associated with charity. He clearly gives to the (nice) poor though, which puts him squarely into the definitions on dictionary.com; there is no mention of sacrifice in those definitions. Santa may not primarily be a symbol for charity, but he is charitable.

I don't think anything is getting displaced as I think there is plenty of time to enjoy all that's good about Christmas (especially when the season starts at the latest right after Thanksgiving, which yes, I find a little annoying). If someone misses get-togethers with family and friends because they are spending so much time at church, then I think they have also displaced what is good about Christmas.

"I know a lot of Christians who are uncomfortable even saying "Merry Christmas" unless they know for a fact that the person to whom they are speaking celebrates Christmas"

I guess I'd feel uncomfortable, or at least kinda stupid, saying 'Happy Kwanzaa' to a Christian by the same token. I think it's more acceptable because of Christmas's pagan/secular origin to say Merry Christmas than Happy Hanukkah as a general greeting of goodwill, but I usually just go with Happy Holidays for people I don't know. How someone construes 'Happy Holidays' as a battle in the manufactured 'War on Christmas' is beyond me also.

The traditions of Christmas have little to do with Jesus because there are many traditions of Christmas that actually don't have anything to do with Jesus. The only 'symbol' that I can think of is as you noted the nativity, and although I thankfully haven't heard of Nestor, I can see how you lament it's prominence. I like your four categorizations, but it's number three that I enjoy the most personally. The traditions that are complementary to Jesus's teachings are fine if they overlap, but I don't consider the things that are directly related to Jesus to be absolutely essential to what I think are truly the good things about Christmas and what it's 'about'. The birth of Jesus, while important to Christians and worthy of celebration, isn't in the top 10 events or lessons of Jesus's life IMO, and I don't think the guy is lacking for attention in this country, given the other holidays he's associated with and the prominence of churches. Personally I see Easter as being much more Christian than Christmas, although it to a much smaller extent also has some pagan or secular components. The nativity is a nice and somewhat solemn story, and I guess I wouldn't object to that general feeling of reverence or rejoicing it symbolizes to me being more prominent in how our culture celebrates the holiday.

I've already written too much again, so I'll just snip it there. And regardless of anything, Merry Christmas!

I do still believe that it is difficult to pin down the 'true' Jesus to much greater a level of specificity than Santa's.

Part of my point is that there isn't a true Santa, even though there is a true Jesus, as difficult as it might be to determine to pin him down, as you said.

If the evolution of Santa gradually turns him into a lizard at the bottom of the ocean, at some point it's more accurate to separate these characters; similar to how this post dilineates between Santa and St Nick (recognizing the difficulties that you are correct about, that we are comparing 'real' people and fictional ones).

I agree, though between any two points in that evolution at which we would say, "This character and the character who he has developed into are not the same character," there would be a range of things that a single character could be or represent.

The inclusion of sacrifice as part of the definition of charity, partly because I think it is embedded in the definition, even if it is not a part of the definition, and partly because Zach's post was about the respective examples set by St. Nicholas and Santa Claus. When I say that sacrifice is embedded in the definition even though it isn't stated there, I mean that the writers of the definition would have assumed that any charity would involve sacrifice, because in the real world, when people give something away, they no longer have it. The definition wouldn't have needed to exclude the possibility that they would give away a material object without giving anything up. The closest example to that from the real world that I can think of is politicians deciding to spend money (raised by taxes) to the poor. I think it is a loose definition of charity that would allow what they do to be considered charity -- what they gave away did not even belong to them.

If someone misses get-togethers with family and friends because they are spending so much time at church, then I think they have also displaced what is good about Christmas.

If they spend that much time in church, I agree, though I don't know anyone who goes to church that much.

I guess I'd feel uncomfortable, or at least kinda stupid, saying 'Happy Kwanzaa' to a Christian by the same token. I think it's more acceptable because of Christmas's pagan/secular origin to say Merry Christmas than Happy Hanukkah as a general greeting of goodwill, but I usually just go with Happy Holidays for people I don't know. How someone construes 'Happy Holidays' as a battle in the manufactured 'War on Christmas' is beyond me also.

As I mentioned before, I did not buy into the "War on Christmas," but I think that the people who were pushing it were right that people should be comfortable saying "Merry Christmas," even though some people do not celebrate Christmas, and even though it wouldn't make sense to say that to someone who is known not to celebrate it. Every holiday has people who do not celebrate it, but we do not ordinarily avoid wishing that they will have a good holiday (whichever holiday it is that they do not celebrate), and we do not normally search out alternative holidays that we can pretend is their equivalent, or create a generic replacement for acknowledging that any specific holiday is going to be celebrated. In turn, people who do not celebrate other holidays do not respond, "Actually, I do not celebrate Valentine's Day. I am not a Christian," "I do not celebrate Independence Day, because I am British," or, "I do not celebrate Labor Day, because I am in management/the owner of the means of production." Christmas is an unusally popular holiday, and is probably celebrated by even more people than Independence Day, Labor Day, and Valentine's Day. I wouldn't be entirely comfortable accidentally wishing a "Merry Christmas" to someone who does not celebrate Christmas for religious reasons, and I would prefer not to make such a person feel left out, but I do not think that this justifies reducing our Christmas greeting to such a generic form that it carries essentially the same information as "have a great day." Thick skin is a better solution to this problem than avoiding talk of Christmas with anyone who isn't a known Christian.

Regarding Nestor, it's another one of those Rankin/Bass shows. I saw part of the end of it a few nights ago. I don't object to the show itself as much as I am puzzled by the possibility that it is one of the most visible acknowledgments on television that Christmas has something to do with Jesus. I agree with you that Category III is great, but I don't think it can be seriously argued that Jesus has not been largely displaced (partially by Santa) when so little of Category I (and even Category II) can be found outside of churches, and when Category IV is so visible. (Speaking of Category IV, I saw the beginning of the Rankin-Bass Jack Frost two or three years ago, and I think we should loop the first ten minutes of it, and harness the energy of all the dead economists rolling over in their graves. Man.) Further, I think that Jesus has something to contribute to the holiday, and that among these things is respectability (which is probably why Category II is as popular as it is -- people don't have to think of Christmas as indulgence for indulgence's sake, or for Santa's sake, if it is also about something else).

I agree that Easter is a bigger religious holiday than Christmas, for Christians, even with all of the attention that Christmas receives. I don't like Easter, but it concerns some pretty important events.

Finally, Merry Christmas to you, too.