Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jason Kuznicki reacts to Justice Scalia's claim that the cross is not a Christian symbol but merely a symbol of respect for the dead:
Scalia's denial is of Petrine proportions. Saying that the Cross is not a symbol of Christianity, and saying that it's only a marker for the resting place of the dead, should outrage conservatives. And it would outrage them, if secularists had been the ones to try it. Truly, doesn't this smack of "happy holidays" at Christmas? Why is Justice Scalia trying to take Christianity out of the Cross?
The answer is obvious: Because it is convenient for the outcome he wants in the case. And that, given his penchant for accusing every other judge in the world of inventing rationalizations to justify their desired outcome in court cases, is rather ironic.
Politics
Comments
Can we, at long last, get past the reverential references to Tony Ducks as an astute and highly esteemed legal scholar. He's a judicial fuckweasel.
Posted by: democommie | November 3, 2009 9:26 AM
@democommie
But he's so... consistent?
Posted by: Abstruse | November 3, 2009 9:41 AM
As Prof. Balkin noted in a recent blog post: "Justice Scalia is, despite his protestations to the contrary, a living constitutionalist, just a very conservative one."
True indeed.
Posted by: Dan | November 3, 2009 9:52 AM
Hmmm... the only religious symbol I recognize is not a religious symbol. I guess he's thinking Trademark law here and creating an analogy between religion and facial tissues. Both can be used as a form of masturbation, after all.
No, it's still stupid and insulting.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 3, 2009 10:17 AM
CSPAN has been rerunning a Scalia vs. Breyer discussion/"debate" all weekend and again this morning. When the moderator would gently direct Scalia towards his apparent hypocrisy, his dodges were masterful. What a piece of work.
Ended with "morality should never play a part in judging". Which explains why hypocrisy gets a free pass.
Posted by: Foggg | November 3, 2009 10:19 AM
I don't really consider it ironic so much as egotistical. He merely believes that every other judge decides cases as he does; on whim. And as his scholarly writings make clear, that's precisely how he thinks it ought to be.
Posted by: Julian | November 3, 2009 10:25 AM
I agree, 100%, that it is absolute nonsense to argue that the cross is not a Christian symbol. However it is interesting to listen to those who, I am guessing, like to point out that Christmas is not a Christian holiday but was co-opted from pagan rituals (very true) then turn about and insist that the cross, which was likewise co-opted from older religions, is a bona fide Christian icon. That’s my cake—and it tastes pretty darn good.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 10:37 AM
I think a simple survey would demonstrate the utter stupidity of justice Scalia and his cross position. Drive by every religious building in any town in America. If it is a christian church, it will have a cross somewhere on or about or in it. If it is non-christian, it wont. Damn simple and nearly 100% perfect example of hypocrisy on Scalia's part.
If he needs more data, walk through any Jewish cemetery. Not a damn cross in sight. Anywhere.
If he's supposedly a very learned justice, I fear for learning in this country's law schools.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 3, 2009 11:08 AM
[Citation needed]
The cross was a torture implement, not a religious icon. The Christians were the loons that started revering it.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2009 11:19 AM
David Heddle - welcome back. However, my head is spinning.
I think the generally held point of view regardless of the origins of Christmas and the cross is that Christmas is a Christian Holiday and the cross is religious symbol to Christians. Who is arguing otherwise? (Besides social conservatives when its convenient to do so for political purposes.)
I have encountered no one making the argument you make here. Care to share who these people are?
I write this within the context that Christmas is conflated in Western Civilization to be more than a Christian Holiday, based on at least its pagan roots and secularists joining in the celebration. But I don't understand how that reality has caused some people's argument to weaken when describing the cross as Christian as you claim. Maybe an example would clarify and buttress your argument for why you justify eating a cake that is currently invisible to me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 11:20 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Scalia was taking a different tack on this issue to the way people are arguing about it here. In my opinion Scalia's point was that the original intention of those who put up the cross was to mark the resting place or memorial of the war dead - that the cross was, in the minds of those who placed it, a generic symbol for the dead, rather than a specific symbol for the Christians amongst them. This is an entirely separate issue to that of whether those of other religions find the cross appropriate. In other words it was comparable to having a cross used as a short-hand symbol for a cemetery on a town map even though there may be Jewish, Muslim or non religions areas within the cemetery.
Scalias point is not whether a Jewish person would currently be happy having a cross on their family grave, but whether he thought the original placers of the cross were intentionally (rather than unintentionally) disrespecting the dead of different religions (I guess Scalia thought they were not trying to intentionally disrespect the non christians).
That said I'm not sure that, even if true, its a valid argument in this particular case, it's more a case of the usual grandfathering in a religious symbol.
Posted by: Sigmund | November 3, 2009 11:36 AM
Pretty much like how "under God" in the pledge of allegiance means nothing and everything at the same time.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 3, 2009 11:49 AM
Well... based on what Scalia decided, we should actually change the pledge of allegiance to have the words "under a cross" since that's neither religious nor offensive, but merely a symbol of respect for the dead. (Of course, then we would become a country in which the symbol of our nation is equated with the dead, but at least it will be "respectful.")
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 3, 2009 11:57 AM
I think, obviously, the concept of a cross symbol was not invented by Christians, but I assumed what Paul @9 (presumably not the Apostle) implied, that Christians adopted it due to it being the execution device for the savior. But perhaps there's some history here the rest of us unaware of?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 3, 2009 11:58 AM
Sigmund, as I understand it the precendent set by Justice Blackmun in his ruling on Allegheny County v. ACLU (July 3, 1989) still holds.
The Supreme Court's opinion in that case was:
"The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community."
The key words here are "appearing to". Whether the intent to promote a particular religious idea was present or not, the mere appearance of promoting it is prohibited.
Posted by: Jynx Evermore | November 3, 2009 12:05 PM
Sigmund:
I'm sure that someone like Michael Heath can put his finger on the particular line in Scalia's comment re: the cross as a religious symbol, but I don't think he was speaking of the "placers' intent" in that matter but of his own opinoion as of the day the question was asked of him.
"the cross, which was likewise co-opted from older religions,"
Really?
Well, if christians wanted a readily recognizable symbol for the "Lamb of GOD", they coulda used a pile of loaves and fishes. Otoh, if KKKristians had their way, the symbol would be a bloody sword with a cruciform hilt.
Posted by: democommie | November 3, 2009 12:09 PM
democommie,
I'm sure you recognize the cross-as-sword symbol. As a non-xtian before recognizing my true atheist within, I had little exposure to crosses close up until I adopted the costume of a monk for Halloween some years back. My bald spot makes it a very good fit:) To complete the outfit, I made a cross out of some scrap pine I had laying around and hung it from my neck with a leather strip. It wasn't until I grabbed it by the short end did that sword idea occur to me. Just need to sharpen the end a little...
Posted by: MikeMa | November 3, 2009 12:28 PM
#9, #10, #14, #16, Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix. Have at it.
Posted by: lukas | November 3, 2009 12:36 PM
lukas stated:
My first comment is @ 10. My question to David Heddle had nothing to do with your link but instead was my attempt to understand his argument/observation about modern-day groups in the public square supposedly making an argument I'd never encountered.
I note this here merely to insure that David notes my question to him remains open.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 12:47 PM
Lukas, no dissembling. Are you forwarding the hypothesis that the cross was not in fact used as a religious icon by Christians because Christ was hung from one in their mythology? They merely took other culture's icons and adapted them for their own use? I was under the impression the Catholics actually believed in the Jesus saga, cross and all. Calvinists too.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2009 12:51 PM
@lukas and heddle (if he's referring to the link provided by lukas):
True, the idea of crossing two lines at a 90-degree angle is not original to Christianity, and the linked-to article does cite the widespread religious use of the swastika prior to the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. However, the swastika - which has been co-opted by Buddhism (tangent: if you want to find a cemetery in Japan, you have to look for swastikas, because they indicate Buddhist temples, which is where one finds cemeteries) isn't a representation of Christ or his crucifixion.
The two happen to be symbols with perpendicular lines... That's about it. If there's more, please point out how the Christian cross is actually derived from the Indian swastika.
Posted by: Umlud | November 3, 2009 12:51 PM
Michael Heath,
You must be kidding. Every Christmas time there will be posts, say on Pharyngula, dissing (rightfully so) the incessant whining regarding the so-called “war on Christmas”. I guarantee that in any such post you will find commenters stating something along the lines of: These stupid Christians complaining about the war on Christmas don’t even know that Christmas is not a Christian holiday! It is as reliable as the sun rise. I know because I have been in many of these discussions—not arguing that Christmas is a Christian holiday but arguing that we (Christians) are not ignorant of the fact that it was co-opted from pagans.
Still the bottom line is just what I stated—that the response to the claims of a war on Christmas often include the argument that Christmas is in fact a pagan holiday. †
So here we have a view that the cross is unquestionably a Christian symbol. (I agree.) But nevertheless, some of the same arguments can be applied to the cross—it predates Christianity, and the symbol for nascent Christianity was the fish, not the cross.
To me the a logical, self-consistent position is that Christmas and the cross are de-facto Christian—and the fact that they were co-opted is of academic interest only. To say that either is not Christian solely because they predate Christianity is silly. But that argument is made for Christmas, fairly regularly--and so if you make that argument it seems to me that you are susceptible to the same bad argument applied to the cross.
James Hanley,
I think we all know, and as mentioned earlier, that the fish was Christianity’s first symbol. The cross as a Christian symbol came very early in Christianity—but it was of course an ancient religious symbol. Cleary Christians adopted it because of its connection to the instrument of crucifixion—although in fact the Romans used a variety of shapes, including single beams, with the most likely (at least in what I have read) shape for the device at Calgary being a capital letter T (sand serif), not a cross.
-------------------
† As an aside, the legitimate reason for acknowledging that Christmas is not a Christian holiday is not that it was borrowed from pagans, but that there is no instruction in the bible to celebrate the birth of Jesus—the instruction is to celebrate the death of Jesus.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 1:31 PM
Funny, I don't recall the Romans conquering Canada...
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 3, 2009 1:42 PM
...the cross, which was likewise co-opted from older religions...
Um...not exactly. Other religions (most relevantly, the Norse) had various forms of crosses (orthogonal or diagonal), but the particular Christian cross, with its lowest arm significantly longer than the others, was not previously used by any religion that I know of.
Paul is right: the Christian cross was not taken from any other religion; it represents an instrument of death by torture, and the revering of it started with Christians.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 3, 2009 1:43 PM
This really is more of a tangential point, but yes, the cross symbol, just like Christmas, has pre-Christian parallels (and maybe origins... that's up for debate).
Michael, all that means is that the same argument that leads some to (re-)claim Christmas as a holiday for all could be used to (re-)claim the cross as a symbol for all. Then, if Christmas can be a federal holiday, why can't there be crosses on federal memorials?
Paul, well, maybe what you call "Christian mythology" or "the Jesus saga" isn't all that original either? Even so, Umlud, in ancient Syria or Egypt or wherever it got adopted as a Christian symbol, the cross had different connotations altogether, and its association with Christianity through the crucifixion story could well be secondary, just like the associations of Christmas and Easter with Christianity by virtue of the corresponding stories are secondary.
Posted by: lukas | November 3, 2009 1:43 PM
mercurianferret,
Calgary!! Now that may be my favorite typo of all time, and I've made some dandies.
Raging Bee,
How is that categorically different from saying "Christmas was not taken from the pagans; it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus.."
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 1:48 PM
I hope you don't expect argument. However, Mithras and the other types borrowed from weren't described as being hung from crosses. And whether or not other religions or cultures incorporated perpendicular lines into their art or beliefs, the Christian cross very directly comes from the Jesus myth wherein he is hung from a cross. There is simply no comparison to the situation where Christians assimilated various pagan beliefs to create what is now Christmas.
On reflection, one wonders in the Egyptian Ankh had a connection to the choice of cross as symbol, but that only has meaning if you are assuming the Bible is not infallible and Jesus is a mythical character (i.e. there was no crucifiction event, but it was chosen to be included because of the cross symbolism). Seeing as these are not arguments heddle would make, his comment about the cross was nonsensical.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2009 2:01 PM
It's a matter of tracing where a tradition comes from. Can you document a link between the Christian choice of Cross for holy symbol and swastikas or ankhs? Is there a plausable or likely connection?
It is trivial to tie elements of modern Christmas celebrations directly to pagan sources.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2009 2:08 PM
How is that categorically different from saying "Christmas was not taken from the pagans; it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus.."
Um...the origin of the holiday and the origin of the symbol are two separate issues?
Also, if you really want to argue about this, the argument you're dealing with is not "Christmas was/was not taken from the pagans;" it's "the date attibuted to Jesus' birth was deliberately moved to coincide with the Winter Solstice, which the pagans considered a holiday;" or "certain particular rituals for celebrating Christmas (like the evergreen tree and the gift-giving) were taken from non-Christian traidtions."
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 3, 2009 2:09 PM
@lukas,
... but what is your proof? You linked to a page that has information about one group of people using the cross that happened to be in the same area as where Christianity would emerge or extend into. However, correlation is not the same as causation. If you are making the claim that the use of it by Christians is secondary, then you need to show some evidence other than two groups of people in one area used it. Why not the triangle to represent the holy trinity, the circle to represent the primacy of the Christian god, the continued use of the fish, etc? In other words, show me the evidence that links the use of the swastika as it came out of India with the Christian cross as it spread throughout Europe. Otherwise the only thing I see is convergent use of a symbol that uses two lines set perpendicular to each other.
Posted by: Umlud | November 3, 2009 2:09 PM
Paul: I'd forgotten about the ankh; thanks. The ankh was considered a symbol of life (IIRC), so the Christian cross (which is, as has already been noted, only one of many shapes that tool of punishment was known to have) could have been adopted because it most resembled a pre-existing symbol of life.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 3, 2009 2:14 PM
Here we go again. Angels dancing on pinheads, V EleventyOne.1.
Posted by: democommie | November 3, 2009 2:18 PM
David Heddle @ 22 stated
I am perfectly cognizant of the so-called war on Christmas and some people providing perspective regarding origins and how Christmas is celebrated beyond the Christian community. Your definition regarding Christmas and the cross perfectly describes my position. However, I know of no group making an argument that Christmas isn't a Christian holiday merely because of these two conditions. So who is this group(s) who think so wrongly that cause you to extend your argument from them to the cross?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 2:42 PM
Michael Heath,
It's no identifiable group--there is no "United Secularists for Proclaiming Christmas is not Christian" that I'm aware of. It is individuals, and it is fairly common. I could go track down comments on various blogs where people make that precise argument--that Christmas is not really Christian but rather it is pagan--but it hardly seems worth the effort.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 2:50 PM
Michael Heath, if I'm following your question correctly, I think the answer is, some fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 3, 2009 2:57 PM
Paul,
for example, just look at how the cross is often represented in Coptic (Christian Egyptian) art: with a circle on top, very reminiscent of the ankh symbol used in Egypt to represent (everlasting, long) life. Since the Christian religion promises everlasting life to its adherents, the connection is not all that tenuous, especially considering that the use of the Sign of the Cross as an amulet to ward off evil is attested since the early days of the Church.
Oh, and democommie is right... What's more important, does anyone really want public policy to hinge on such academic minutiae?
Posted by: lukas | November 3, 2009 3:02 PM
I'm trying to figure out what is being discussed here: I suspect that the problem is one of framing.
Christmas is a secular holiday because many non-Christians celebrate it, and they celebrate it without the Christian iconography. Sometimes they call the holiday by a different name, but most call it "Christimas".
If the cross were a symbol used by most non-Christians, then the analogy would be apt. But the only people to use the cross as a memorial symbol for the dead are Christians. If any non-Christians use the cross, they are a very small minority among the non-Christians. So the two situations don't really correspond.
All this discussion about origins is entirely irrelevant to whether or not a particular holiday or a particular symbol is secular or sectarian.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 3, 2009 3:04 PM
Abby Normal,
You are correct--which is what is so funny when people claim "Christians don't even know where Christmas comes from." Why? --Because the strongest arguments against the celebration of Christmas as a religious holiday that I have heard--and have heard fairly frequently--are lessons that have appeared in the form of Presbyterian and Baptist sermons.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 3:19 PM
Christmas is a secular holiday because many non-Christians celebrate it, and they celebrate it without the Christian iconography. Sometimes they call the holiday by a different name, but most call it "Christimas".
True, but it's more complicated than that: there's the secular/nondenominational aspect (the gift-buying, family visits and official holiday time), but there's also the fact that other religions have other holidays on or around the same time, particularly the Pagan Winter Solstice/Yule, Kwaanza, Hannukah (sometimes), Ramadan (sometimes), and the Roman Saturnalia and other observances explicitly pegged to the Winter Solstice. What we call "the holiday season" is not just secular and religious; it's secular and multi-religious.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 3, 2009 3:26 PM
So am I understanding you correctly Heddle, are you saying Christians who say they shouldn't celebrate Christmas, but who use the cross as a religious symbol, are hypocrites trying to have their cake and eat it too?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 3, 2009 3:43 PM
Abby Normal,
No--because in my experience Christians who argue that Christmas is not Christian do so on the basis that it is not called for in the bible. They don't (at least those whom I know) argue that you shouldn't celebrate it because it was adopted from pagan festivals. So for these Christians the "it predates Christianity" argument is irrelevant. Thus they use the cross for Christian iconography, even though it predates Christianity, without meriting a charge of hypocrisy.
The potential for hypocrisy (too strong of a word--inconsistency is better), in my opinion, is if you argue that Christmas's predating Christianity means that it is not Christian, while not considering the same argument as applied to the cross symbol.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 4:09 PM
David Heddle - I'm glad to have you back. I can't say I support your conclusion. Obviously that's no big deal.
Still a Sarah Palin fan? (think of that as your first hit in your first scrimmage back after being out for awhile). ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 4:13 PM
Michael Heath,
I am not as much of a Palin fan as I was. But I can say the same about Obama. From the peak of my support for Obama--when I thought I would vote for him--something like March '08, until now, it (my support) has been experiencing a monotonic decrease.
I wish there was a Goldwater out there, somewhere, but the species appears to be extinct.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 4:23 PM
They don't (at least those whom I know) argue that you shouldn't celebrate [Christmas] because it was adopted from pagan festivals.
Some Christian sects do indeed argue this, and have been arguing it, off and on at least, since the days of Oliver Cromwell, who died in infamy after banning Christmas pudding and other decadent luxuries. (Of course, some of these arguments are based on misunderstandings and outright falsehoods regarding the alleged "pagan origins" of this or that form of revelry or folk tradition. Many Catholic traditions, and local festivities tolerated/regulated by the Church, were rejected by Protestant churches since the Reformation, on the grounds that Catholic doctrines and practices were "impure" and "pagan.")
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 3, 2009 4:23 PM
I wish there was a Goldwater out there, somewhere, but the species appears to be extinct.
Well, there's Colin Powell. Oh wait, he supported Obama, and so did a lot of hard-headed moderates like Goldwater. I guess that's why Palin-supporters like you try to pretend they don't exist.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 3, 2009 4:27 PM
heddle must have been gone long enough for you to completely forget how he approaches discussion. Good luck getting him to admit that any of the above people are Christian. Obviously if they were really Christian they would act as heddle says Christians do, because otherwise they're not really Christian (must not be part of the Elect, they just think they're Christian). In his experience, all Christians think the same way he does.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2009 4:39 PM
Heddle, I see what you're saying. Though I'll add I have no experience with the people you're describing. The Christians I've known or read who are against Christmas do have a big problem with its pagan origins, for example the folks at link I provided earlier. There’s usually some mention of Paul’s warning against backsliding into paganism.
Likewise I don't recall encountering people argue that Christmas's predating Christianity means that it is not Christian. The closest that comes to mind are those who say its older origins shows it's not exclusively a Christian holiday, usually in response to "He's the reason for the season," types who object to "taking Christ out of Christmas." But obviously its pre-Christian origins could be relevant in that context, unlike the people making the silly argument you’re talking about.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 3, 2009 4:44 PM
Paul,
It took all the way to this comment to remind me that there are pinheads who have no idea what they are talking about, but who will post anyway.
Completely stupid. The exact opposite is true, if you ever bothered to read any of my posts. I have pointed out, on numerous occasions, that my Calvinism leaves me among the most tolerant toward those claiming to be Christian--because it teaches not that salvation is via a theology exam, or by affirming a doctrinal statement, but because God will have mercy upon whom God will have mercy. It would be difficult for you to make any claim regarding my position that was dumber than what you just did--though I suspect you probably have it in you to surpass your best effort to date.
Raging Bee,
Actually I might very well vote for Colin Powell. At least based on what I know about him now. And who are all these Goldwater clones with national political aspirations whom I am denying--only because I voted for Palin? That's the point--there is nobody running for office, no potential presidential candidate-- who is the sort of libertarian that Goldwater was. I meant they are extinct as national political figures. They exist, yes, I am one myself, but I'm not going to vote for me.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 5:04 PM
heddle,
You're seriously arguing that you're super-extra tolerant towards those claiming to be Christian, in the same thread as you say that in your experience no Christians complain about Christmas celebrations due to pagan influences? Really? Besides, over many threads in the past you have pulled the same "No Christians think X" trick, and you considering them not part of the Elect was the most charitable interpretation I could think of. I suppose from here on out the assumption will just be that you walk around with your head stuck in the sand, and heavily self-select the type of Christians you listen to or associate with.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Heddle,
There are some logical and historical flaws and inconsistencies with your Christmas/cross argument.
First, the logical point of choosing the cross for Christians was to commemorate the crucifixion. This is actually the case whether Jesus was a real historical figure whose life is described in the New Testament, or a mythical compilation of pre-Christian theologies and early Jewish --> Christian philosophers.
Second, the holiday known today as "Christmas" wasn't logically chosen based on anything to do with Christ, his life, his teachings, etc. It was chosen quite specifically to co-opt existing religious belief systems and lure their adherents into "the flock" so to speak. If there was a Christ, he wasn't born in December. As you've already pointed out, the Bible doesn't call for Christians to revere or celebrate his birth. So really, what you have, is a cynical (albeit successful) attempt to convince pagans to follow the new Christian faith and minimize the "in the closet" adherence to these belief systems despite the local king/emperor/head man/chief/clan leader adopting Christianity.
Finally, while "Christmas" is Christian, the holiday and the holiday season are decidedly not. Simply because Christians slapped their holiday into the time period doesn't mean that Hanukka/Chanukah no longer exists, it doesn't mean that Ramadan doesn't exist when it coincides, it doesn't mean that the winter solstice stopped happening, or really any of the other observances/holidays that are still celebrated went away. Personally I think that this is the problem. Secularists are making the argument from this point, Christians are arguing from the "Christmas is Christian" argument. They aren't, quite often, arguing the same issue (though there are numerous ignorant Christians who don't recognize that there is a difference).
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 3, 2009 5:18 PM
Paul,
Your argument is idiotic. I qualified, as I should, that the opinions regarding Christians and their views on Christmas were based on the Christians I know. If I hadn't qualified it as such, then I would be subject to the criticism that I was claiming to speak for all Christians--which is the criticism that clearly you want to level, but can't, because I preempted it.
No I don't pull the "No Christians think X" trick. You're full of wind, piss, and excitement. I point out when I think that people are stereotyping Christians, as when they say "Most Christians don't even know the true origins of Christmas" or "Most Christians don't really know the bible" etc.
That would be a bad assumption, of the type you are prone to, because I don't. An epic fail. I associate more with non-Calvinist Christians than Calvinists. That is both on-line and in day-to-day life. For example, I attend a bible study at the national lab where I do my research--in that bible study, consisting of Protestants and Catholics, I am the only Calvinist. But I consider each person there to be my Christian brother. The only time I am one of many Calvinists is on Sunday morning.
Care to try for more of teh stupid?
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 5:32 PM
heddle @ 43:
That doesn't tell us much. How about this.
On election day I rated Palin a 7 out of a 100 and Obama an 85 out of 100 in terms of apititude for the Presidency. Today, I'd rate Palin a 5 and Obama an 80 (I think he did better than expected staffing his Administration, but he's failing on his federal court cases, the rest is exactly what I calculated and hoped I'd see - focused on process optimization yielding results rather than swinging for the fences).
Where do you rate them now relative to election day in terms of aptitude to be President?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 5:34 PM
dogmeatib,
Fair enough—I would agree the differences are substantive. I never found the correct nuance for stating what I was trying to state. Perhaps the closest is that Christmas and the cross are both clearly “Christian” (even as I regard it a mistake to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday) regardless of their origins. I think there is some agreement here—because some others have indeed characterized the argument that I was attempting to highlight—that Christmas is not Christian because it was co-opted from pagans, as “silly.”
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 5:40 PM
Christmas, as celebrated by the RCC is an RCC "Holy Day of Obligation" which means Cath-O-Licks must attend a mass on that day (or perhaps the day before, I've lost track since I resigned from the faith). Christmas as celebrated by most other christian faiths (most of them, afaia)is a "Christian" holiday, with heavy emphasis on JESUS. Christmas is not celebrated by anyone else in a religious sense. The Japanese are big on the secular version, I'm not sure about other folks outside the U.S.
It would be far more accurate (and honest) to say that Christmas is the holiday that the RCC co-opted sometime around the latter part of the Roman empire's reign.
Posted by: democommie | November 3, 2009 5:48 PM
Michael Heath,
I don't quantify the way you do. My fondness for Palin was due to her sort of popularist initial message, for which I am always a sucker. While it always attracts me, I must admit that Palin, like most (all?) popularists, tend to be charlatans. And like others I was taken aback by her poor performance, especially in the Couric interview and in the Biden debate. (Though I don't think Biden did much better.) I stuck by her because that's what I tend to do, and I do think she was mistreated by the likes of Andrew Sullivan.
As for Obama I soured on him because of the big issues of public financing and FISA. As president he has continued to disappoint when it comes to civil liberties. And I think his presidency has been, to date, amateur hour. Or maybe Chicago hour. The latest example, which continued the media intimidation of his campaign, was the unseemly attacks on Fox and the strong-arming of the other networks to go along--which I was heartened to see them refuse.
Again I don't give careful numbers as you do, but if pressed I'd give Palin a 10 and Obama a 20. To calibrate, I'd give Bill Clinton an 85 on the same scale.
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 5:53 PM
"... but if pressed I'd give Palin a 10 and Obama a 20."
In other words, you think Palin would be half as good at presidential duties as Mr. Obama? FAIL, REALLY HUGE FAIL.
Posted by: democommie | November 3, 2009 5:59 PM
democommie,
Well, okay, how 'bout I give Palin a 0 and Obama a 1. Then it will be the case that Obama is infinitely better. Hows that?
Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 6:03 PM
Ummm Heddle, you do realize the whole "Fox wasn't allowed but the other media outlets forced the White House to bring them in" story didn't actually happen, don't you? It's really rather disappointing if you fell for that Fox fairy tale especially since it is bogus non-stories like these that are the reason Fox was called out. At the same time you seem to ignore the fact that Bush did things far worse than the terrible fact that the Obama administration pointed out the truth. Fox isn't a news service, hasn't been for years. They take their talking points straight from the RNC, they were busted multiple times manufacturing stories that didn't exist. They regularly "accidently" mislabel disgraced politicians with the wrong party designation. They openly sponsor blatantly political rallies and just this week they put together an infomercial to support poor put upon Rush Limbaugh.
The Obama administration was quite right in pointing out that Fox isn't a news service but instead a propaganda machine.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 3, 2009 6:15 PM
dogmeatib,
I disagree. I read the “pay czar” interview story on a multitude of non-Fox sources. As for Fox not being a news network, that’s nothing more than you saying: “In this case I agree with the administration that Fox is biased (so do I, by the way) so I find it acceptable that top administration officials call them out.” But I think it is unseemly for the administration to actively work against a network, such as in not permitting interviews of top officials on their Sunday shows, regardless of its leanings. It's also insulting--as if people can't decide for themselves.
Are you under the mistaken impression that I am a supporter of the previous administration?Posted by: heddle | November 3, 2009 6:41 PM
At least the comment threads around here are set to swell once more.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 3, 2009 6:43 PM
"Well, okay, how 'bout I give Palin a 0 and Obama a 1. Then it will be the case that Obama is infinitely better. Hows that?"
Stupid. Unless of course you're going to shoehorn a whole shitload of politicians in between the two numbers. Obviously you're still a bit smitten by the Impalinator, despite your protestations to the contrary.
FWIW, I'm no math whiz, but I don't think "1" equals infinity.
Posted by: democommie | November 3, 2009 6:55 PM
No, there is a huge difference between being biased, like MSNBC, and functioning as a party propaganda machine which is what FOX has become. They no longer even attempt to pretend their lack of bias, which is fine, but again, they go far beyond that and have implemented astroturf "grass roots" movements that step entirely beyond the pale for any organization that wants to even pretend to be a news agency. In addition to this, numerous media watch dog groups have provided massive evidence of editorializing in allegedly "news" broadcasts.
Gibbs has insisted that no apology occurred, Fox refuses (or at least did last I heard) to let other media outlets speak with the alleged person to whom the alleged apology was given.
Again, if an alleged news agency functions instead as a propaganda arm for the opposition party that has taken to twisting even simple press releases into idiotic assaults on liberties, why should that administration provide special access? Are Obama administration officials appearing on the Rush Limbaugh radio show? Because really, that's about as much "news" as Fox has descended to over the last few years.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 3, 2009 7:12 PM
heddle "I wish there was a Goldwater out there, somewhere, but the species appears to be extinct."
Not extinct. Purged from the Party for insufficient purity. When one of the excuses for failure is that "they weren't sufficiently conservative", the only solution to failure is to become more extreme. It's bizarro homeopathy; a positive feedback loop.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 3, 2009 7:23 PM
At dinner tonight three of my dinner companions got into an indepth discussion regarding their nails. I leveraged that time and now reconsider my score on Obama.
Instead of 85/80 (Nov-08/Nov-09), I'd do 75/70 given I forgot to score Mr. Obama on my distaste for his approach to tax policy in terms of how where to collect it (in fairness to Obama I think the same of the GOP and Clinton though I admit Clinton's approach was successful, I just don't think it'd be as successful as what I support).
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 7:27 PM
democommie wrote:
"FWIW, I'm no math whiz, but I don't think '1' equals infinity."
heddle was alluding to something like the ratio of the numbers: 4 is twice as big as 2 because 4/2=2, but 1 is infinitely bigger than 0 because 1/0=infinity.
Of course, it's possible my sarcasm meter may be broken; if so, sorry.
Posted by: Kris | November 3, 2009 7:31 PM
Kris stated:
Reminds me of Bush's record on in-country terrorist attacks relative to Obama's over their first months in office.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 3, 2009 10:17 PM
But Michael Heath, why would Al Qaeda want to attack now? They've got a muslim in the White House oppressing Christians and winning the War on Christmas! Etc!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 3, 2009 10:45 PM
I don't know any of you all, but I've got to chime in unnecessarily to support heddle on this argument about Christmas. Christians who don't think you should celebrate Christmas are not generally arguing it on a "previous pagan holiday" basis, in my experience. Reformed church types, Calvinists, Quakers, and others argue against it because it doesn't have any Biblical precedent and we should celebrate Christ's birth every day. These days I consider Christmas almost a secular holiday; my Hindu and atheist friends all trade presents, after all... the more fastidious among the atheists specify that they're winter solstice presents...
The cross -- now, that's Christian!
Last of all, the ratio between 1 and 0 is in fact infinity. Positive infinity? Negative infinity? Depends from which side you approach zero. Be careful, kids.
Posted by: kt | November 3, 2009 11:51 PM
Division by zero is undefined, not infinity. You can say the limit of 1/x as x approaches zero approaches positive or negative infinity, but that is not the same thing.
Posted by: Paul | November 4, 2009 12:17 AM
Michael Heath said:
"Reminds me of Bush's record on in-country terrorist attacks relative to Obama's over their first months in office."
No joke. The funniest thing I hear is, "Well Bush dealt with a crisis less than a year in office!" Yah? So you're praising him for...responding to a crisis he should've prevented? ...? ellipsis question mark? ...? REALLY? As if the response to an attack on US soil these first few months of Obama's presidency would'nt've been, "Oh! The terrorists know we've got a weak president!" They've obviously got bad a case of the "Heads I win, tails you lose."
Also, I swear I'm not a pedant (and anyone who says otherwise is in for a really boring conversation about pedantry), but
Paul wrote:
"Division by zero is undefined, not infinity. You can say the limit of 1/x as x approaches zero approaches positive or negative infinity, but that is not the same thing."
And I humbly agree, except that "1" implies "+1", so that "1/x" implies positive infinity. I may not be 100% on my constitutional law, but I'm reasonably prepared on my basic functional series...eses...serii, well whatever it's infinity.
Posted by: Kris | November 4, 2009 12:39 AM
Kris:
Like I said, I'm not a math whiz. In any event, it's a typical sort of heddlemove. Someone questions him on a statement he's made and he changes the statement without admitting that his previous statement was--um, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh,yeah--bullshit. His first comment was that he would score the Sarah the Impalinator at "10" and give Barack Obama "20". His comment indicates that Ms. Palin has half of whatever it is that Mr. Obama has to qualify him for doing his job as PotUS.
The way it works is that heddle makes his little swipes at people, someone calls him on it and he says they misunderstand (usually he tells them that they are stupid, too) but that's just ol' heddle doin' his thing. Just like I'm just doin' my thing.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2009 1:21 AM
Democommie: I assumed he was using a logarithmic scale, like that Richter fellow. It was the only logical conclusion.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 4, 2009 2:17 AM
democommie,
What a big ado about nothing. I was poking fun that you took my original rankings with YEC-like hyperliterality to mean that I was claiming (God forbid) that Obama was only and precisely twice as good as a president as Palin would be. Especially given that I placed caveats on my ranking indicating quite clearly that I was just pulling numbers out of my ass, not engaging in a Michael Heath style quantitative analysis. And even in his case, and he can correct me if I am wrong, I don't think he intended that his original score: Palin 5, Obmama 80 should be interpreted as Obama being exactly 16 times better than Palin (whatever that means).
The 0 and 1 scores of my later post were meant to demonstrate how meaningless your analysis was--your claim that the ratio of the scores was significant. After all, (Palin, Obama) scores of (1, 5) and (20, 100) both imply by your reasoning that Obama is five times better at his presidential duties, even though the two sets of grades send very different messages.
Just to close the loop, Paul is also incorrect in this instance. The scale introduced by Michael Heath is reasonably assumed to be the traditional 100 point scale that contains only non-negative numbers. Thus 1/x, as x approaches zero--and x representing a score on this scale-- approaches positive infinity and never negative infinity.
To be fair you are not alone in your innumeracy. The Obama administration reported the number of jobs created/saved by the stimulus to an astonishing (and meaningless) six significant figures: 640,329. Generally you lose points on a physics test if you report an answer to too many significant figures. Of course the bible knows this, stating things like "40,000 were killed" rather than 39,986.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 6:28 AM
heddle:
A.) I'm not "innumerate" (I think that would be one of your ways of saying that someone might be stupid?). I do have a fairly severe learning disability re: any higher math than basic artithmetic; I do that basic arithmetic as well as most folks and better than quite a few. I've talked to a fair number of educators and research folks about what is, for me, a conondrum. As yet no one's been able to offer me any help with or an explanation for the problem.
B.) Ummm, you're the sciency guy, right? But precision is not important to you in this instance?
Your original comment was:
"Again I don't give careful numbers as you do, but if pressed I'd give Palin a 10 and Obama a 20. To calibrate, I'd give Bill Clinton an 85 on the same scale."
indicating that Bill Clinton was WAY better than Mr. Obama or the Ice Queen of Wasilla. If you were using a scale of 1-100 for scoring then I guess only Bill gets a passing grade.
As for Michael Heath's numbers; he said:
"On election day I rated Palin a 7 out of a 100 and Obama an 85 out of 100 in terms of apititude for the Presidency. Today, I'd rate Palin a 5 and Obama an 80"
On reflection he later said:
"Instead of 85/80 (Nov-08/Nov-09), I'd do 75/70"
indicating that he had recalculated his "scoring" based on factors he had neglected to consider previously. His scores, both preliminary and final would indicate to most reasonable folks that on a scale of 1-100, Mr. Obama's "grade" was a "D" to "D-", whereas Sister Sarah's "grade" was the grade I used to get on all of my algebra, geometry and algebra 2 tests.
Re: The Obama Administration's "innumeracy"; luckily, for them, they weren't taking a physics test. I suspect that they have the same relatively intelligent statisticians from OMB, GAO, EIEIO that compiled the numbers for the last 43 administrations. I also suspect that the number used, 640,329 was used, precisely because it's a LONG number that takes time to say and catches the attention a lot better than saying, for instance, .64 million or 6.4 x 10 to the fourth. But that is a discussion for them educated folks that talk about semiotics and such, not a rube like me.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2009 8:04 AM
democommie,
No it is a recognized way of characterizing someone who is not good at math. It says nothing about their intelligence--for surely there are any number of innumerate geniuses such as, I've been told and don't know for a fact that it is true, Darwin. Don't put words in my mouth.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 9:07 AM
A couple of observations and clarifications.
Like heddle admitted, I too pulled my numbers out my butt as well, though I think this way far more often than heddle admits so I might have an advantage when it comes to framing such an issue this way merely because I practice it more. The intention was merely an attempt to get heddle's opinion on Ms. Palin presented in a manner that allowed us to understand how far down a sliding scale she had sunk for him, if at all.
My 75/70 score for the President should not be construed to be a D or D-. Think of it more like a percentile of his capability and now performance relative to a set membering every elected official in the U.S. with a remote or better chance at President and all previous Presidents (such a gauge would put W. Bush at about 25, McCain at about 17, Reagan/Clinton at about 80). I think Mr. Obama is doing incredibly well in most areas and I think he's everything I expected when I voted for him with two exceptions:
1) I had no idea how ambitious he would be with carrying out his major campaign agenda once the credit crisis hit (e.g., health insurance reform, energy, education, the two wars). I've been very impressed with his courage in staying the course. His pragmaticims and the recession would have allowed him the politicl capital to focus strictly on the short-term recession problem rather than finally taking on reform efforts we needed to start in the 1970s.
Therefore, my respect for his leadership skills have grown enormously, especially since this was an area where he had not had enough executive experience to gauge him prior to his inauguration with the exception of how we ran his campaign after Palin and the credit crisis emerged as issues.
2) I am of course very disappointed with the President's positions in federal court cases as Ed reports them to this forum. I do not attempt to rationalize his actions yet given we have no good data to work with yet.
I will be very disappointed with the Sotomoyor nomination if the President doesn't nominate an intellectual heavyweight to challenge the conservatives in his next two nominations, especially given Justice Steven's age and Justice Ginsberg's health.
That assumes J. Sotomayor will be an intellectual lightweight in the same class as Alito, Roberts, Breyer, or Kennedy - a bonus would be that I turn out to be wrong. I consider Scalia an intellectually lazy politician and Thomas mentally deranged similar to a teabagger whose merely more articulate at defending his irrational justifications where the best antitote is someone embarrassing their positions in their opinions, concurrences, or dissents - like Stevens has been doing now for all these years.
Heddle - FWIW, I don't think your criticisms of the President in this thread rise to being worthy of downgrading him overall given the major issues he's dealing with, except your noting his vote on FISA. That vote turned out to be predictive of his current approach in the courts, worthy of our derision, and apparently contra to his campaign posturing. I suspect you use them to justify a preconceived distaste for the man, in spite of your previous acceptance of him, at least that's how it came off to me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 4, 2009 11:16 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 11:23 AM
I recognize that the question about the origins of the cross is merely academic, but then I'm merely an academics, so of course it interests me. My (weak) apologies to those who aren't interested, but...
heddle,
I'm still uncertain about whether the more accurate claim is
a) cross-forms were used by other religions and the crucifixion of Jesus led Christians to independently adopt a cross-form; or
b) cross-forms were used by other religions and the crucifixion of Jesus led Christians to non-independently co-opt a cross-form.
Lukas' mention of an ankh-style form in the Coptic church provides some evidence for b), but your reply re-stated the claim, without evidence. I'm not arguing a), but it's what I'm accustomed to believing (for better or worse), and you've piqued my curiosity with your counter-thesis, so I'm curious about evidentiary support for it.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 11:30 AM
x could be approaching zero from the positive or negative side.
And heddle, note, I was not responding to you. I could care less about a Palin-drone's political scale. My post was correct, responding to kt.
Posted by: Paul | November 4, 2009 11:56 AM
Paul said:
"x could be approaching zero from the positive or negative side."
Nobody approaches zero from the negative side anymore! I think there even was stimulus money to encourage people not to do it.
(Subtitled: good point.)
Posted by: Kris | November 4, 2009 12:12 PM
James Hanley,
I don't know. As far as I know there is no contemporary writing that details the reasoning behind how the cross was adopted as a symbol. So I could not say it was purely a) Jesus was executed on a cross (even though it may have been a T or an X) so let's adopt that symbol or b) That cross symbol, used elsewhere, would be useful for us, because we could use it to represent the crucifixion.
Maybe someone else knows of some contemporary writing on the matter.
All I was stating is that the cross as religious iconography predated Christianity.
Paul,
Well you are still incorrect, or at least incomplete, because x can approach zero in an infinite number of ways, e.g., along the imaginary axis in which case you get an imaginary (infinite) limit.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 12:15 PM
James Hanley:
"Lukas' mention of an ankh-style form in the Coptic church provides some evidence for b), but your reply re-stated the claim, without evidence."
I think it might be that the same mindset that led the early christians to co-opt Saturnalia for the day to commemorate the alleged birth of their alleged saviour could be responsible for them letting the copts use the ankh, an old and much venerated symbol in Pharonic Egypt as their "cross". I have exactly as much proof for this as heddle and every other christian has for the existence of GOD.
Michael Heath:
Thanks for the clarification.
heddle:
"democommie,
(I think that would be one of your ways of saying that someone might be stupid?).
No it is a recognized way of characterizing someone who is not good at math. It says nothing about their intelligence--for surely there are any number of innumerate geniuses such as, I've been told and don't know for a fact that it is true, Darwin. Don't put words in my mouth."
I put no words in your mouth. I opined on what your comment might have meant.
My original comment:
"FWIW, I'm no math whiz, but I don't think "1" equals infinity."
elicited this response from you:
"To be fair you are not alone in your innumeracy.".
I do not possess a BA in creative writing, oddly enough I am not illiterate--nor am I considered to be by most people who read what I've written. So, you just assumed that, because "I'm not a math whiz", I can't grasp mathematical concepts? Are you saying that people who don't achieve your exalted level of mathematical skill are innumerate in general?
You choose to insult those who disagree with you, as a matter of course. Then when you are called to task for it, you deny having done so. You're a smart guy, no doubt about it. You're also a sore loser.
Posted by: democcommie | November 4, 2009 12:21 PM
I have no issue in copping to the charge of incompleteness. Incorrectness is another issue, as I was responding to someone who implicitly described a normal 2 dimensional Cartesian space and I responded in kind. Positive or negative was even tangential to the point being made, being that division by zero is strictly undefined, not infinite.
Posted by: Paul | November 4, 2009 12:45 PM
heddle,
OK. I took your post @7, "the cross, which was likewise co-opted from older religions," to literally mean co-opted, but I guess I misinterpreted you. Thanks for clearing it up.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 1:02 PM
James Hanley,
I think what you are saying is that I overstated my case in #7. If so, you are right. "Co-opted" is not the right word. As I stated in some previous comment I've had trouble, in this thread, expressing exactly what I wanted to say.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 5:04 PM
Heddle,
Would that I could claim never to have selected a word that was less than ideal. ;)
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 7:46 PM