Should We Shame Religious Politicians?

[leibowde84]

The term merits implies some sort of normative standard (as you have excluded egoist and other non-normative meanings). How are such standards not based on similarly contested normative and philosophical beliefs as religious morality?

They aren't necessarily based on such things. That is my point. Just pointing out your unsubstantiated assumptions ... no more.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

They aren't necessarily based on such things. That is my point. Just pointing out your unsubstantiated assumptions ... no more.

I'm somewhat confused by your posts. I think you are trying to argue there is a common sense morality that need not be based on contested philosophical or metaethical theories. I agree that morality does to a large degree lie in common sense. The problem is defending such common sense morality from those who disagree. To do this you need to enter philosophically contested areas about how to ground morality. It is not enough to tell the sceptic that it is obvious and he is an idiot.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm somewhat confused by your posts. I think you are trying to argue there is a common sense morality that need not be based on contested philosophical or metaethical theories. I agree that morality does to a large degree lie in common sense. The problem is defending such common sense morality from those who disagree. To do this you need to enter philosophically contested areas about how to ground morality. It is not enough to tell the sceptic that it is obvious and he is an idiot.

That's the point. There is no "correct" and "incorrect". We can judge practices on their own merits. Are their victims involved? Are innocent lives lost unnecessarily? Is theft involved? Etc.

All practices, regardless of culture, can be judged on such criteria. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

That's the point. There is no "correct" and "incorrect". We can judge practices on their own merits. Are their victims involved? Are innocent lives lost unnecessarily? Is theft involved? Etc.

All practices, regardless of culture, can be judged on such criteria. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

But all these criteria you bring up seem to be normative. How do you ground such claims? How do you attempt to refute or persuade those who disagree? I don't see how you do this rationally without getting into philosophical and meta-ethical issues. I think you are ignoring the degree to which these issues are contested. You mention theft, for example. There are some who agree with Proudhon's declaration that property is theft (the poster who made the OP seems to describe herself a Norse communist, for example). So, you need some way of convincing them to accept your criteria.

The need to appeal to higher principles than common sense or long-held beliefs is obvious to even those of us who have a lot of time for these : those appealing common sense do sometimes disagree. For example, the immorality, or at least inferiority, of homosexual acts has been a very long and widely held human moral belief. If someone appeals to common sense morality to defend this, then the social liberal who believes himself in a common sense morality (I'm not sure he often does) needs some way of refuting this other fellow, so the liberal can show the moral acceptability of homosexual acts. The liberal must appeal to higher, philosophical distinction.

 

[leibowde84]

But all these criteria you bring up seem to be normative. How do you ground such claims? How do you attempt to refute or persuade those who disagree? I don't see how you do this rationally without getting into philosophical and meta-ethical issues. I think you are ignoring the degree to which these issues are contested. You mention theft, for example. There are some who agree with Proudhon's declaration that property is theft (the poster who made the OP seems to describe herself a Norse communist, for example). So, you need some way of convincing them to accept your criteria.

The need to appeal to higher principles than common sense or long-held beliefs is obvious to even those of us who have a lot of time for these : those appealing common sense do sometimes disagree. For example, the immorality, or at least inferiority, of homosexual acts has been a very long and widely held human moral belief. If someone appeals to common sense morality to defend this, then the social liberal who believes himself in a common sense morality (I'm not sure he often does) needs some way of refuting this other fellow, so the liberal can show the moral acceptability of homosexual acts. The liberal must appeal to higher, philosophical distinction.

Why does everyone have to be convinced? Doesn't that practice assume some absolute moral truths?

 

[Mister Emu]

it is well established that much of the traditions associated with the holiday of Easter are from pagan origins.

Which ones? Just going by American tradition I can't find the support for that. The Easter hare is first written about in the 1600 and then only in reference to treating children ill from bad eggs. I'll give you it is possible, but certainly not established. The eggs are a Christian tradition dating back to a fast on eggs during lent(and thus saving them by boiling). The candy is a modern invention. The Religious service is wholly Christian. I am just not sure where you are coming from with this, because I can't think of a single family tradition we had that was firmly rooted in known pagan practices.

But to the majority of people with children who acknowledge the day, it consists of eggs, bunnies, chickens, flowers, "rebirth", spring, children being happy and entertained, and women being happy about being able to wear bright colors (I think). All of which, even the clothes, have their origin in pagan rituals celebrating the coming of spring.

You are confusing sharing widely used symbols with origin. Eggs: Christian. Bunnies: Ehh, it would be a stretch to call it Christian just because of the ties to Mary and the Virgin Birth, but I'm not sure you can call using a well known symbol of life(the prodigiously breeding rabbit or hare) a pagan practice just because pagans used it too. Christians used obvious symbols of new life from the death of winter in their celebration of the new life granted by Christ. It smacks of saying McDonald's is engaging in soviet tradition because they both recognized the value of a red and yellow color scheme.

There is a much greater argument for Christmas, as a celebration that blatantly co-opted the look, traditions, and symbols of pagan winter celebrations in the popular celebration that didn't really have anything to do with what is being celebrated. On a day that was chosen in part for the ease of celebration for converting pagans(but also on Biblical statements).

Which brings me back to the main point about this being an attack based in ignorance. What pagan day is being celebrated? The only reference to pagan "Easter" is that it was month where feasts(note the plural) were dedicated to Eostre.

With Easter you have a questionable source for the name in English, German, and a few German derivatives; a 17th century mention of a hare sans any pagan backdrop; and that is it. Nothing. Just an ignorant attack on Christians, and, as so often is the case, it is couched in pseudo-intellectualism.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Why does everyone have to be convinced? Doesn't that practice assume some absolute moral truths?

But isn't the point of the argument implied by the OP, which you seem to be defending in its general tendency at least, that there is a distinction between secular, legitimate moral appeals and illegitimate, religious ones, when it comes to the public square. It seems to me a lot of this distinction is founded on the fact the secular moral reasons are supposedly objective and pass the muster of general rational scrutiny, whereas religious ones don't. It is not that everyone has to be convinced so much as a reasoned case is made that is hoped will convince any fair minded person. My point is the distinction in question is not self-evident and requires much more argument than has been made.

Otherwise, why the distinction? Surely, we are not being asked to shame the religious simply because the religious in America often appeal to religiously based morality to argue for things that left-liberals and other leftists, like the OP, disagree with? There is surely a broader, less ideological point than that involved.

 

[leibowde84]

Which ones? Just going by American tradition I can't find the support for that. The Easter hare is first written about in the 1600 and then only in reference to treating children ill from bad eggs. I'll give you it is possible, but certainly not established. The eggs are a Christian tradition dating back to a fast on eggs during lent(and thus saving them by boiling). The candy is a modern invention. The Religious service is wholly Christian. I am just not sure where you are coming from with this, because I can't think of a single family tradition we had that was firmly rooted in known pagan practices.


You are confusing sharing widely used symbols with origin. Eggs: Christian. Bunnies: Ehh, it would be a stretch to call it Christian just because of the ties to Mary and the Virgin Birth, but I'm not sure you can call using a well known symbol of life(the prodigiously breeding rabbit or hare) a pagan practice just because pagans used it too. Christians used obvious symbols of new life from the death of winter in their celebration of the new life granted by Christ. It smacks of saying McDonald's is engaging in soviet tradition because they both recognized the value of a red and yellow color scheme.

There is a much greater argument for Christmas, as a celebration that blatantly co-opted the look, traditions, and symbols of pagan winter celebrations in the popular celebration that didn't really have anything to do with what is being celebrated. On a day that was chosen in part for the ease of celebration for converting pagans(but also on Biblical statements).

Which brings me back to the main point about this being an attack based in ignorance. What pagan day is being celebrated? The only reference to pagan "Easter" is that it was month where feasts(note the plural) were dedicated to Eostre.

With Easter you have a questionable source for the name in English, German, and a few German derivatives; a 17th century mention of a hare sans any pagan backdrop; and that is it. Nothing. Just an ignorant attack on Christians, and, as so often is the case, it is couched in pseudo-intellectualism.

Nope. The pagan tradition celebrated at the outbreak of spring was for fertility, offspring, sex and such. Christians used the same idea for the "resurection" or "rebirth" of Christ.

Scholarly concensus is that the traditions involving eggs, rabbits, etc. were borrowed from Pagan traditions that many Christians celebrated before becoming Christians.

Also, remember that most early Christians, thanks to St. Paul, weren't coming from Judaism, but, instead, Pagan traditions from their own cultures (many roman/greek).

So, it seems that, by far, the obvious cause would be Pagan influence rather than the outlandish (in this specific context) claim of straight up coincidence ... "even though the Christian traditions of eggs, rabbits, flowers, rebirth, etc. seem logically tied to aspects of the pagan tradition, which many of the very same early Christians used themselves prior to becoming Christians used, we should just accept that easter was a fresh start."

I'm sorry, but, even as a Christian, that seems like a stretch.

 

[leibowde84]

Which ones? Just going by American tradition I can't find the support for that. The Easter hare is first written about in the 1600 and then only in reference to treating children ill from bad eggs. I'll give you it is possible, but certainly not established. The eggs are a Christian tradition dating back to a fast on eggs during lent(and thus saving them by boiling). The candy is a modern invention. The Religious service is wholly Christian. I am just not sure where you are coming from with this, because I can't think of a single family tradition we had that was firmly rooted in known pagan practices.


You are confusing sharing widely used symbols with origin. Eggs: Christian. Bunnies: Ehh, it would be a stretch to call it Christian just because of the ties to Mary and the Virgin Birth, but I'm not sure you can call using a well known symbol of life(the prodigiously breeding rabbit or hare) a pagan practice just because pagans used it too. Christians used obvious symbols of new life from the death of winter in their celebration of the new life granted by Christ. It smacks of saying McDonald's is engaging in soviet tradition because they both recognized the value of a red and yellow color scheme.

There is a much greater argument for Christmas, as a celebration that blatantly co-opted the look, traditions, and symbols of pagan winter celebrations in the popular celebration that didn't really have anything to do with what is being celebrated. On a day that was chosen in part for the ease of celebration for converting pagans(but also on Biblical statements).

Which brings me back to the main point about this being an attack based in ignorance. What pagan day is being celebrated? The only reference to pagan "Easter" is that it was month where feasts(note the plural) were dedicated to Eostre.

With Easter you have a questionable source for the name in English, German, and a few German derivatives; a 17th century mention of a hare sans any pagan backdrop; and that is it. Nothing. Just an ignorant attack on Christians, and, as so often is the case, it is couched in pseudo-intellectualism.

In reference to your points on the origin of the word "easter", I fail to see why the name of the holiday is relevant, as no one has claimed anything about that word's origin. Obviously, the Christians were celebrating something new. They just stole a lot from pagan traditions too. What's the problem?

 

[Kori]

No, it really isn't. Even the idea that the name Easter(which is in English, and that was not always, and German/German derivatives only; for most of the world the name is a derivative of Greek Pascha from Hebrew Pesach) is sourced from a pagan goddess is in serious doubt. The Christian celebration itself isn't pagan in any way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ēostre

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

 

[Mister Emu]

Nope. The pagan tradition celebrated at the outbreak of spring was for fertility, offspring, sex and such. Christians used the same idea for the "resurection" or "rebirth" of Christ.

This is just wrong. The date of Pascha comes from, and was until antisemitism got involved directly tied to the date of, Passover.

I mean no offense, but a pointed response is in order to this. How am I supposed to take your prior claims of religious and/or historical knowledge when you get even the most basic and easily checked items flat wrong?

Scholarly concensus is that the traditions involving eggs, rabbits, etc. were borrowed from Pagan traditions that many Christians celebrated before becoming Christians.

We know where the egg tradition came from; we know it came from Lenten fasts. That is the scholarly consensus. We know the egg hunt started with Martin Luther. We know egg decoration is far older than pagan traditions(60,000 B.C. to be as precise as possible). The first mention of the rabbit is from the 17th century, it is possible this was a pagan tradition because we know that rabbits are a symbol of life.

So, it seems that, by far, the obvious cause would be Pagan influence rather than the outlandish (in this specific context) claim of straight up coincidence ...

I didn't say coincidence, I said there were/are widely acknowledged symbols of life, just as there were and are widely recognized symbols for almost everything. You are taking human things, like egg decoration and colorful clothing, and saying that because pagans did them they are pagan things.

Is it a coincidence that the soviets and McDonald's used red and yellow as their colors? If not, is it soviet influence on McDonald's? Or is it an understanding of color that led both to choose the scheme?

"even though the Christian traditions of eggs, rabbits, flowers, rebirth, etc. seem logically tied to aspects of the pagan tradition, which many of the very same early Christians used themselves prior to becoming Christians used, we should just accept that easter was a fresh start."

What traditions and when did they start?

We should accept Pascha for what it is, a Christian holy day based on a Jewish holy day that developed traditions based on need(eggs) and culturally relevant widely acknowledged symbols.

In reference to your points on the origin of the word "easter", I fail to see why the name of the holiday is relevant, as no one has claimed anything about that word's origin.

I brought it up because the name is the only thing that has an evidentiary tie to pagan practices or traditions.

They just stole a lot from pagan traditions too. What's the problem?

The lack of evidence when people make that claim. The evidence that the claim exists in the face of.

 

[Mister Emu]

@Kori

Well memed, friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Easter

In 1959, Johann Knobloch proposed a different etymology.[11] Writing of "the relationship between dawn and springtime, between night - or early morning - and daybreak in the Christian Eastern rituals of the East and the West",[12] he proposed that the Old High German name for the feast, Ōst(a)rūn, as a Gallo-Frankish coinage,[13] drawn from Latin albae in the designation of Easter Week as hebdomada in albis and in the phrase albae (paschales).[14] The Germanic word is connected with an Indoeuropean word for the dawn (uşás-, Avestan ušab-, Greek ἠώς, Latin aurora, Lithuanian aušrà, Latvian àustra, Old Church Slavonic za ustra), and Knobloch links this derivation with the word albae in the phrases in Church Latin, with which are associated the French and Italian words for the dawn, and connected it with the dawn service of the Easter Vigil in which those to be baptized faced east when pronouncing their profession of faith.[14][15][16][17] Jürgen Udolph, himself a proponent of a different view, says that, although the theory that the words "Easter" and "Ostern" come from the name of a Germanic goddess reconstructed by Jacob Grimm as Ostara is the most widespread at a popular level, Knobloch's proposal enjoys most support,[14]

Here is Udolph's view:

A still more recent theory connects the English and German words not with the dawn but with a word associated with baptism. Jürgen Udolph published in 1999 his Ostern: Geschichte eines Wortes,[18] in which he argued for an origin from the North Germanic verb ausa, "to pour". A pre-Christian rite of "baptism" and name-giving was referred to as vatni ausa, "to pour water over". Since baptism was the central event in the Easter celebration in the first centuries of Christianity, it was argued that this background explains the name given to the feast

Right on Wikipedia.

Top-kek, as they say.

 

[Kori]

@Mister Emu It's clear you just read the meme.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Well, I'd be opposed to shaming someone if they don't deserve it. But I usually see it applied to people who do deserve it.

And you would know for a fact that they deserve it? What if you're wrong?

 

[leibowde84]

This is just wrong. The date of Pascha comes from, and was until antisemitism got involved directly tied to the date of, Passover.

I mean no offense, but a pointed response is in order to this. How am I supposed to take your prior claims of religious and/or historical knowledge when you get even the most basic and easily checked items flat wrong?


We know where the egg tradition came from; we know it came from Lenten fasts. That is the scholarly consensus. We know the egg hunt started with Martin Luther. We know egg decoration is far older than pagan traditions(60,000 B.C. to be as precise as possible). The first mention of the rabbit is from the 17th century, it is possible this was a pagan tradition because we know that rabbits are a symbol of life.


I didn't say coincidence, I said there were/are widely acknowledged symbols of life, just as there were and are widely recognized symbols for almost everything. You are taking human things, like egg decoration and colorful clothing, and saying that because pagans did them they are pagan things.

Is it a coincidence that the soviets and McDonald's used red and yellow as their colors? If not, is it soviet influence on McDonald's? Or is it an understanding of color that led both to choose the scheme?


What traditions and when did they start?

We should accept Pascha for what it is, a Christian holy day based on a Jewish holy day that developed traditions based on need(eggs) and culturally relevant widely acknowledged symbols.


I brought it up because the name is the only thing that has an evidentiary tie to pagan practices or traditions.


The lack of evidence when people make that claim. The evidence that the claim exists in the face of.

I was speaking far more generally about similar symbols and practices. Exchange of eggs and the use of rabbits are both remnants of pagan traditions that carried over. Even the resurrection story is similar.

The following article explains some of these similiarities.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism

 

[Druac]

Shame...they do it to themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Uk4c2uoOF3o