2008.11.26
Ring ... ring ... Hello? ... Hi, Billy, this is Santa!
The town of Blacksburg has arranged for Santa Claus to call local boys and girl. Read all about it below, or just fill out the request form already. No word yet on whether Gaia will call pagan children for Yule/Winter Solstice celebrations, Judah will call Jewish kids for Hanukkah or ... well, I'm not sure who would call for Kwanzza.
I wonder if there's still time to get Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet.
This is a message from Blacksburg Alert, a public notification service of the Town of Blacksburg.
Santa Calling
The Blacksburg Parks & Recreation Department has made special arrangements for Santa Claus to telephone your children, ages 3-8, from Santa's North Pole Workshop on Thursday, December 18, between 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
All forms must be received by Monday, December 15, before 12:00 p.m.
Sorry Santa is only allowed to call local Blacksburg area exchange numbers including Christiansburg, Radford, Dublin, Salem, Pearisburg & Pulaski. No long distance calls.
Santa Calling printable form (Word Document)
RSS feed 
And here I was hoping we would get past Thanksgiving before Christian began his annual assault on all things Christmas. And silly me, I thought the objection was to the religious aspects of Christmas. I didn't realize it included childhood fantasy elves from the North Pole too.
Comment by C Ramsey — November 26, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Huh? I genuinely think this is a wonderful thing the town is doing and urge people with young children to participate. This really isn't the season for such negativity, Ramsey.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 26, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
I am with Christian on this one. Religious aspects of any holiday and any religion should not be up to the local, state or national government (or any department thereof) and neither should the government participate in childhood fantasies which will exclude children who do not celebrate Christmas with Santa. Churches and Community Groups, knock yourself out to include or exclude as you like, but not my taxpayer funded government. Call it an attack if you will, but that does not mean the attack is not justified. Keep up the good work Christian!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 26, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
Christian: Post #2 Okay, now I am just confused. While I vehemently disagree with C. Ramsey, I admit her take on your comments seemed correct to me. You mean that was you promoting the practice? Wow, you have a way with words.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 26, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
As a childhood fantasy, I'm all for having a little fun with Santa. If the town were promoting religious fantasies, I'd have a problem with it.
At the same time, just because I think calls from Santa are fun, doesn't mean I don't think the town should reach out to secular celebrations of other fantasies. It should.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 26, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Pray tell me how promoting a childhood fantasy that excludes some children is different than promoting a religious belief that would exclude some children? A government office/department should not be in the business of either. How about Parks & Rec doing the job they are paid to do and letting parents, extended family, churches and community organizations undertake the fantasy promotion? It is probably difficult enough for the children of cultures and religions who do not "celebrate" the in your face Christmas holiday without the government getting involved. And these "war on Christmas" "war on Christianity" zealots just make it worse. One minute you are yelling that government should not be the nanny or big brother and the next you defend their promotion of a consumption driven retail 'holiday'. You don't want them to over tax you or tell you what to do, but you think they should promote your religion with plaques, displays, ceremonies, etc.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 26, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Sandi
Are you saying that Blacksburg should ban Kwanzaa from all town participation?
Comment by Henry — November 26, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Sorry to have misunderstood your intent Christian. Many of your articles are replete with, in your words, snide humor and sarcasm, so it times its hard to tell when you are sincere and when you intend a different meaning.
And Sandi, just because something, like Santa, is associated with Christmas, it isn't necessarily religious. In fact, most die hard Christians bemoan the commercialization of Christmas. They worry that the pervasive influence of Santa diverts kids attention from the religious aspects of Christmas. So I'm not sure what your problem is, but it appears your ire in this case is misguided. Who's next on your chopping block, Frosty the Snowman?
Comment by C Ramsey — November 26, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
Man, talk about misinterpretations...I have nothing against Santa, or Frosty and I love Rudolph. I have nothing against Religion, not the one I practice nor anyone else's. My problem is with a government department sponsoring or promoting something that could be hurtful or leave some children out. When children are involved the government should be very aware of the snares and leave controversial or exclusionary things alone. As our country continues to welcome people of other cultures and faiths, it is imcumbent on our government to maintsin certain standards and serve us all. There is no dearth of churches, community groups, and most good old parents to meet the Santa quota for those who practice the consumer holiday or the religious one, but the government should not. Not Christmas, not Kwanzaa, not Eid al Fitr, not Hannukah, not Santa, not the Easter Bunny. It is a measure of respect for all and favoritism for none. PS So do you not man a hatchet here on occasion?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 26, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Give it a rest Sandi, the town is trying to do something nice for the kids. Period. And, don't be thinking I'm some religious zealot, either. While I can't come to a conclusion, my wife doesn't believe in God, and we still have Santa come to our house.... Let the kids have fun...
Comment by Eugene — November 27, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Seems like everyone wants to attack the christen theme of christmas.
Tell you what.
How about every church, every salvation army etc etc,
Not collect money, have dinners for the poor and hungry, collect cloths for the cold then we will see what happens.
The christen sect in this country do more for families then almost all
entities combined.
Let all the christens stop giving then lets see where we all stand.
cant have it both ways.
Comment by Herb Krebs — November 27, 2008 @ 11:20 am
OMG, this is absurd! I believe absolutely and completely in God. What I do not believe in is government sponsored activities that exclude children when the separation and "difference" is already so keen. I am obviously talking to a wall without ears. What you celebrate, what I celebrate, is simply, 'to each his own', but the government involvment is the problem and that I will not let rest. It is the same principle for marriage (a government contract), for military service (a contractual commitment to the government), for equal rights all across the board: gender, race, culture, sexuality, age, disablilty, religion, etc. The principle is the same, if the government wants to promote and sponsor Santa, then let's line up all social icons, all cultural customs, all religious ceremonies for the celebrations and see how long you stay supportive of the government being the director/sponsor. Governmental involvment is the problem not the celebration itself. I will give this a rest, and please, pardon me for thinking this was some sort of discussion forum where we were encouraged to participate and discuss.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 27, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
I can respect Christian's opinion about keeping the religious aspects of Christmas out of the government's seasonal activities. The government is Constitutionally precluded from promoting a particular religion. Thankfully that is not at issue here because Santa is not a religious figure. Given that, this objection to a secular activity on the basis that it might exclude "non-Santa" people seems non-sensical.
Apparently the contention is that the government is obligated to offer the same services to everyone. But very clearly the government does not now nor has it ever followed that edict. If it should, does that mean everyone is entitled to foodstamps? There is a local government program to provide assistance with the costs associated with heating in the wintertime to those who can't afford it. Should I feel excluded because I don't receive that assistance. Or perhaps more germane to this issue, wouldn't kids who prefer to play rugby instead of soccer feel excluded by a parks and rec department that doesn't offer rugby as option? Should the parks and rec therefore eliminate all the athletic programs because they don't include every sport?
As yet, no one has offered anything to indicate how this program is discriminatory. Anyone in Blacksburg who wants to participate can, anyone who doesn't want to, doesn't have to. I can simply find no logic in the argument that somehow the children who don't celebrate Christmas or don't believe in Santa are somehow excluded. Excluded from what? Would they really want to be included in something they don't believe in or don't celebrate? And what service are they being denied because others are being offered this service?
I think the same argument that keeps popping up in support of gay marriage is appropriate here. People keep asking for opponents of gay marriage to show how allowing gays to marry threatens heterosexual marriage and society. It seems to me that if that is a valid request in that case, it is equally valid here. How does this "phone call from Santa" program harm those who don't want to participate in it?
And just to stir the pot a little more, Christiansburg High School has held a Breakfast with Santa for years now. Should they expect protesters at this year's event?
Comment by C Ramsey — November 27, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
"The government(Congress) is Constitutionally precluded from promoting a particular religion. "
Acknowledging a particular religion is not the same as promoting it. The government already endorses Christmas by making it an official holiday.
Comment by Henry — November 28, 2008 @ 10:18 am
That's classic, Henry. Anytime the government, local or national, tries to be more inclusive for the holidays (and by that I mean anytime they officially try to call it anything but "Christmas") you Christians howl like someone's ripping your god from you. You make such a stink of it that the officials relent (they want to be reelected, after all, and if you whine and complain loudly enough you can bully them into anything), which in turn leads you to say "the government already endorses Christmas by making it an official holiday."
Comment by Rob Miles — November 30, 2008 @ 9:21 am
Oh, I forgot this part:
"Acknowledging a particular religion is not the same as promoting it." Then how come you Christians get your panties in a wad every time the government tries to acknowledge any religion (or even secular humanism) other than your own?
(No, not all Christians act like this. They're just the loudest ones.)
Comment by Rob Miles — November 30, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Festivus is Coming soon. Perhaps we should organize a RTEB Vs. Reader tournament.
Comment by scott — November 30, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
for the wrestling and feats of strength i meant to say...
Comment by scott — November 30, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
It is hard to take Christianity out of Christmas when Christmas is a Christian holiday to begin with.
Comment by Kyle — November 30, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Kyle: Christmas has certainly had a (fairly recent) history here in the US as a Christian holiday, but it is not a "Christian holiday to begin with." And I'd say the religious element is, thankfully, slowly draining from it like pus from a wound.
When you give those gifts this year, and place them under a tree, and marvel at the yule log burning, and over eat at relatives houses, etc., remember that you are celebrating this time of year, whatever you call it, in the exact same way that Pagans, Druids, and other animistic faiths have done for thousands of years. Early Christians just borrowed the Winter Solstice celebration and arbitrarily called it the birth date of a rabble-rousing Jew who obtained more notoriety than he deserved.
Comment by Rob Miles — December 1, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Many of the Christmas traditions have their roots in old pagan tradition and the winter solstice festivals. In fact, Christmas being celebrated on December 25, when there is substantial biblical evidence that Jesus was born in the spring due to the presence of the shepherd watching their flocks by day and night, is one such thing. In the 4th century (around 336 AD), church leaders who wanted to challenge other religions in Europe decided to move the celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th, to coincide with winter solstice festivals, which was a celebration of the re-birth of the sun. Yule logs, another Christmas-time staple, are also rooted in pagan tradition. Even hanging of mistletoe can be traced to a pagan birth, yet all of these are frequently associated with Christmas now.
Comment by Other John — December 1, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Non-Christians added many customs to Christmas. Christmas is probably best described as a secular holiday based on a Christian holiday. That's why it seems so ignorant to downplay the holiday. We all know it is Christmas. Suppressing the holiday is just another form of Hate against a particular religion. Can you imagine what would happen if all these institutions decided to suppress Kwanzaa or Ramadan?
"You can call it Fasting Period but you can't use the word Ramadan because it is connected to a particular religion"
"You can call it Cultural Week but you can't use the word Kwanzaa because it sounds exclusive".
Comment by Henry — December 1, 2008 @ 9:43 am
While I think it's cute, I see what Sandi is saying. By making these "santa calls" the government is being active in promoting Christmas...a holiday that some religions do not celebrate. While Santa himself is not a religious figure, a Jewish kid does not expect Santa to come down his chimney, therefore Santa represents a religious holiday. Now, while these phone calls are essentially harmless, it is crossing that line...they are being very active towards a holiday that is not celebrated by all religions.
Comment by HCS — December 1, 2008 @ 10:27 am
another note - I am not saying the government should act like these holidays don't exist...but there is a difference between acknowleding a religious holiday and being active towards one particular religous holiday.
Comment by HCS — December 1, 2008 @ 10:28 am
Rob,
I'm afraid I don't have a good answer to the question you posed in post #16 other than to say I suspect it is the same reasoning used by people who get their panties in a wad because the greeter at Wal-Mart said Merry Christmas instead of the more PC 'Happy Holidays.'
But I do commend you and many of the other posters here for being able to argue out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. On the one hand you argue that the naive yet sanctimonious Christian right runs around defending Christmas with little knowledge of what they are actually defending because the modern American celebration of Christmas isn't really a Christian religious celebration but instead an amalgam of many different cultural customs with Pagan, Druid, and animistic roots. Yet out of the other corner of your mouths you argue that the Christmas is so inextricably Christian that any symbol or celebration associated with Christmas becomes a de facto religious symbol. That is a very interesting argument if for no other reason than it doesn't need a foil as it is self-sustaining argument against itself.
But on a slightly different note, HCS, does your position mean that all the localities need to take down all of the decorations they have put up? You know wreaths on buildings and streetlights, Christmas trees in public buildings,etc. I mean these are not religious decorations per se, but they are associated with Christmas and as such, in keeping with your argument about the Santa calls, don't they become a de facto religious promotion by the government. So wouldn't that be the next logical step? No government sponsored decorations, parades or holidays?
Comment by C Ramsey — December 1, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Even though I am extremely against government sactioning of religious events or displays...a country where religion is so thrust under the proverbial bus is equally as dangerous as one where it is firmly entrenched in the governing bodies. The extreme absense of any public religious displays can be found across China, where religion is largely deplored by the government...and was also a firm staple of communist Russia and Germany where relgion took a backseat to Marxism-Leninism. On the contrast, Iran, Afghanistan, and pre-colonial Britain offer some insight on how a state can be when religion and the state go hand-in-hand and the people are crushed by religious doctrine and rule. Neither extreme is not a place I would want to be.
Comment by Other John — December 1, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Point of fact, it is the Christians crying a "war on Christianity" that get the wadded panties over the Wally World Greeter using the inclusive, "Happy Holidays" (as most all cultures have some end of year holiday) instead of the exclusive "Merry Christmas", NOT us double-sided-mouth folks. The "naive yet sanctimonious Christian right" keep mixing issues and distorting and restating comments to suit their own ends so you serve an important purpose too BTW: posts like yours are the ones proving our point! Thanks!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 1, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
C Ramsey: I don't have a problem with "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays". In fact, I don't care if someone says "Happy Hanukkah", "Merry Winter Solstice", or whatever. In fact, though I understand Sandi's point I don't agree with her. Santa Claus is such a secular expression of Christmas these days that I just don't have a problem with the City doing that. As long as they don't discriminate when it comes to offering services to others, that is.
Christmas as a secular holiday is fine with all of its trappings (trees, decorations, gifts, food), and none of that is a symbol of any one religion. A nativity scene, on the other hand, is exclusively Christian, and I support efforts to keep that off of courthouse lawns and the like. In other public areas, such as parks and town squares, I can tolerate the display as long as other non-Christian displays are allowed (including secular displays). Obviously there has to be a line drawn on obscene displays, but other points of view have to be given their time.
I can't speak for HCS,but I can answer your last question for myself: you're exactly right; the best thing would be for the government to stay out of all "holiday" issues altogether. There shouldn't be government sponsored decorations, parades or holidays.
Comment by Rob Miles — December 1, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
I don't get "wadded up" when someone says "Happy Holidays". I get upset when entities say "You are not allowed to say Christmas". I think it is wrong for the government to ban the word "Christmas" from official use.
If we are racists because we don't have Obama signs, aren't we anti-Christian if we don't have Christmas displays?
Comment by Henry — December 1, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Well, Henry, on that we can at least agree. I don't want anyone telling me I can't (or must) say "M/C" or "H/H".
Comment by Rob Miles — December 1, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
What's wrong with a "one size fits all" kind of greeting like "Have a nice Holiday"? I can't tell what religion someone is by just looking at them. I sure don't wear a badge that says I'm a Methodist on my forehead and I doubt many others do either.
I think everyones a little too wrapped up in the selfish side of this debate rather than looking at the true meaning of wishing someone good health, happiness and peace at this or any other time of year. I don't happen to care of they are Jew or Gentile; Hindu or Muslim...believing or non-believing. If I can wish someone a nice day or Happy Holiday season...so be it.
That really should be quite sufficient.
Comment by Will — December 3, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
That's got to mess with folks since the Muslim holidays go by their own calendar, which shifts by about a week every years versus our standard calendar. Their holidays are never on the same day or even at the same time of the year for most folks. Maybe it helps keep people on their toes. While Christians, Jews, an pagans are celebrating Christmas, Chanukah, and solstice all about the same time...Muslims have Hajj from the 6-9, and next year it will start in November.
Comment by Other John — December 3, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
"I get upset when entities say "You are not allowed to say Christmas". I think it is wrong for the government to ban the word "Christmas" from official use." - Henry
Can you apply this same logic to your opposition to the atheist plaque in the other discussion? It appears to me you want to ban the atheist's message...but you have no problem arguing that it would be wrong to ban Christmas messages. Please explain.
Comment by HCS — December 3, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
The athiest plaque was not banned so it isn't an appropriate comparison. Also the plaque was not a holiday display. It was a political sign. If someone tried to put up anti-abortion sign at the Christmas display, I will complain. It doesn't belong there.
If someone says "You cannot have a Solstice tree because everyone doesn't celebrate Solstice", I'll be the first to tell them they are wrong. Solstice is part of the holiday season. Remember, the problem is not what you can say, it's what you are not allowed to say. If you are not allowed to refer to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree, that's just wrong.
Comment by Henry — December 3, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
I was not saying that it was banned Henry. I was saying that you would like to see it banned...I was simply pointing out a flaw in your argument, not what really happened.
"If you are not allowed to refer to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree, that's just wrong."
I'm with you Henry, call your tree a christmas tree if you wish. I don't give a hoot and neither should anyone else really. But as long as you're going to fight to say christmas tree you have to be prepared to let other relgions/beliefs get their say-so in too. The way I see your argument is: "it's fine for henry to say whatever henry wants...but those people over there shouldn't be able to say that because it's not the way henry sees it."
I really don't care who says what or who has what decorations up. What really gripes me are people who get upset when someone suggests that their decorations/expressions etc. should not displayed but then turn around and get equally upset when someone else's (who they disagree with) is.
Comment by HCS — December 3, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
HCS, Lord love you for trying. You are stronger stuff than I! A discussion means hearing both sides and some people just don't want to, but you are a valiant warrior.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 3, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
You still miss the point though. The plaque was a political sign. That's why it didn't belong. I don't care if the "atheists" put up a sign that says "Happy Holidays". It's fine with me. But putting up a sign that says that Muslims are enslaved to superstitions at a Holiday display is just wrong.
Comment by Henry — December 3, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
well henry, i suppose I could say that the religious symbols (no matter how super friendly they are) don't belong on state property either.
Comment by HCS — December 3, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Sandi #36,
You are so right on target. There are some good works by Debra Tannen, one of which is called "The Argument Culture" that I found to be excellent in expressing the problem that you point out. We have come to a point where conversations and discussions are not viewed as vehicles for enlightenment, but rather wrestling matches where the engaged parties are trying to be winners. In that scenario, she points out, many people believe there are two sides to an argument when in reality there are usually thousands of sides to every argument.
In blogs like this, you can see that one issue leads into another into another solely for the purpose of being argumentative and not to try to further an understanding of the issue.
Thankfully, most of my daily encounters are more open and productive than some of these blogs.
As for this subject, most of the symbols have long since stopped being religious. Santa Claus' relation to Saint Nicholas was erased a long time ago. A christmas tree is not a religious symbol. Even if they were blatantly religious, I would say that any government sponsored display should be a display of the diversity of the community. By allowing a spectrum of displays, one cannot accuse a government of favoring one religion over another. In addition, as I stated above, the plaque was not really a "celbration of atheism" but rather a shot at anyone who does hold religious beliefs. That has no place just as a christian plaque that said something like "all atheists will go to hell" would have no place. If a plaque saying something like: "There are many of us who do not believe in a deity. We would also like to wish you happiness and peace on earth." This gets their existence out there without being offensive.
Comment by joe(not the plumber) — December 3, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
HCS
You could ban diversity from public property but I say that would be a shame. Are we going to ban public mention of the Rev Martin Luther King because he was a Baptist preacher? That would be awful. You don't ban things because they mean something. You ban things because you want to suppress their expression. It's the equivalent of book burning.
I don't have a problem with a Muslim chaplain praying to Allah. If he does, it doesn't mean Islam is our official religion. I have a problem when someone says he can't pray to Allah without being punished.
I find it interesting that the atheist group insisted on the ability to post their political beliefs when the empty places where religious expression has been banned are a towering monument to their beliefs.
Comment by Henry — December 3, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Henry, from your repeated mention of Islam, I assume that is your faith and if we have offended your personal faith, I apologize. I think we all can get carried away. How do you arrive at the conclusion the sign was "political"? I freely admit these back and forth posts are confusing but I struggle to see your point on this issue and I do not want to miss the opportunity to understand how a sign insulting religion/faith (while disrepectful) is either political, only an insult to Islam, or has any bearing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And what exactly was banned? If you do not want diversity banned, then what is the argument against the sign? Did you support the sign (diversity) or want it removed (banned)? While I try to appreciate your glib smack backs, I confess they lose power when I can't understand you. Help me out here.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 3, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Well! The atheist sign saying that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds seems to have softened at least one christian's heart and freed his mind enough to say:
"a christian plaque that said something like "all atheists will go to hell" would have no place."
If it continues to serve this purpose so well, maybe it can be replaced with something milder someday.
Comment by Ed H — December 4, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Ed H,
I'm not sure what I have written in the past to make you think that my heart was softened by that plaque. What I have written here have always been my views.
Joe(ntp)
Comment by Joe(not the plumber) — December 4, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Sandi
Why was the sign placed there? It was placed there to bash the diversity of ideas in a public place and to promote hatred of those ideas. It took advantage of a public forum on The Holidays to attack the beliefs of others. I fail to see how that falls in line with the theme of the exhibit. If the town creates an exhibit in honor of Martin Luther King, should the KKK be allowed to enter an exhibit criticizing Martin Luther King? Of course not.
If the town allows the sign, it endorses the ideas on the sign. At least that is what I hear from people here. The town should not be engaging in Hate.
Comment by Henry — December 4, 2008 @ 8:30 am