Thoughts on Easter
Some thoughts summarising our podcast on Easter .
Easter is somewhat anomalous in that we all mark it in our calendars as a secular holiday; a true cultural institution… yet most of us who are non-religious do absolutely nothing for it. This is unlike virtually every other national holiday or festival, including smaller ones like pancake day (Shrove Tuesday) and lent which are interconnected with Easter. People all know the date but do almost nothing collectively in households or outside in wider society to observe it… its not like Halloween and Christmas where secular elements have intertwined with the religious festival and arguably have taken on a different cultural meaning. The only minor exceptions are small things like exchanging chocolate eggs.
Easter is full of strange rituals and weird traditions, many of which we chat about in the podcast. Australians have replaced the symbolic rabbit with their native bilbie, the former of which is considered a pest and the latter of which is endangered. We also chatted about some odd behaviour involving willows branches. Probably the most bizarre is the shaping of butter lambs, the form of which apparently wards off Satan and prevents him from entering an Easter meal. This anti-Satan spread is a Russian Orthodox practice and is testimony to the vast and varied nature of Christian faith across the globe. When there are nearly as many variations of Christianity as there are Christians then you're gonna get some seemingly odd things.
Traditionally, the festival predates our current calendar and relies on the old Hebrew Calendar, having to happen after the equinox so isn't easy to calculate. Many Christians hold different ideas about the date of Easter itself owing to the fact that Passover follows the moon on the Hebrew calendar and not the sun like the Gregorian and Julian calendar. Some Christian communities such as Puritans, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses don’t even observe the celebrations at all, believing them to be arbitrary additions to scripture or even sinful.
The origins of Easter spring from an organic combination of Pagan and Jewish practices. The name Easter itself is probably a derivation of a Germanic pagan goddess Ostre who was worshipped in England and had a month was named after her. The common Harvest feast in her honour was morphed with Abrahamic practices like Pascha (or Passover) as culture transitioned and Christianity was adopted. The Passover meal is so named because the Egyptian plague passed over Jewish households who marked their doors, sparing their firstborns from God's wrath (one of many historiographical rituals that retain and remember past events in Jewish history).
Jesus must have been absolutely stacked to lift that boulder.
Most of the symbology and practices of Easter are tied in with earlier Jewish practices, the general procreative themes of spring and old pagan traditions. Norwegians apparently go skiing and watch murder-mysteries for Easter. Easter eggs are a much more novel thing and people decorated them to symbolise the empty tomb and new beginnings. Their decoration used to be with red to represent the blood of Christ.
There is some debate with Neo-pagans as to how much history is appropriated, revised or just straight up fabricated. Some modern pagans seem to know all about what druids got up to in ancient times when most historical experts are sceptically clueless. Furthermore, darker elements of older religions from a more brutal time are often entirely ignored by people who really just want to revive some basic aesthetic and novelty in one or two practices. This is all enjoyable but lets not get carried away and think that we've resurrected a historically accurate and just as fleshed out pagan attitude to life. Pagans didn’t just take their religion seriously at one off mead festivals or when they got home on reddit - they lived these beliefs in a completely different context and probably took them quite seriously. Maintaining that historical continuity through traditions is important but not seamless (how can it be?). Whatever the historical reality, Paganism is a great excuse to get boozey and to affirm and enjoy life.
The real issue is moving past gimmicks and novelty and thinking about if and how paganism informs a deeper sense of existentialism or navigates social issues. Its worst elements have issues with conceited (albeit harmless) superstitions like the belief in actual magical spells and hidden mythological creatures, as well as concealed self-importance of being able to know and control these realities. But pagans are generally amazing people - awed by the natural world and enthused by the gift of life in an eccentric community that is quietly subversive in the most positive of ways.
Non-Christians often jump on the lent bandwagon, thinking that giving up a few addictive things could help improve their non-religious lives in the form of a detox. What's probably not realised in this casual appropriation of ritual however is that, in its "proper" context, lent is about more than just giving up chocolate or social media for a week or two. Its reflective of a broader attitude of how Christians generally relate to enjoying life and its luxuries with a submissive and humble gratitude and a subtext of asceticism. In some places like the Philippines this can be taken to the extreme. Not to mention lent is informed by a larger context of Christian commitment to belief which it relies upon to enrich its value and reasons for why someone should do it.
In the end we had to cut a massive heated debate about this that went on for over an hour. We've talked about this kind of thing before, namely in the context of yoga and mindfulness. Nye's position is that there is no real difference between secular and religious practices and that all traditions are borrowed and appropriated anyway; particularly if they're beneficial. My point was that we can unknowingly dilute or fundamentally change something by stripping it of its religious context. A Christian ideally partakes in lent because it’s a smaller part of a bigger way of life and demands are placed upon the believer that must be obeyed. It also involves integrated stuff like prayer and communal worship. For a theist, it’s done as part of a truth that should not be ignored - not because it "helps". A non-believer is merely using lent to fit their demands in a way that doesn't connect to a community or history. Not that's any sort of reason not to do it anyway! I think part of the confusion in this discussion was this was just a matter of clarity not what anyone morally "should" do. After all, an appropriated secular version of lent "could" be more meaningful to an atheist if they took it seriously enough… at the very least it would be quite different in an atheistic context. Where we found some common ground was in the dichotomy between commercialised festivals and community-driven history-rich festivals.
"Pancake day" as we know it was born out of the functionality of using up leftover ingredients before the fasting of lent.
On a point of secularism, Humanists have a vexatious tendency to be dragged far too deeply into debates about Easter eggs with Christians every year. The annual online argument is routinely played out like clockwork. It stems from a minority of Christians who claims that Christian identity and influence is being eroded by chocolate companies. These companies, for reasons of inclusivity, apparently refuse to use the word "Easter". Most of the time this isn’t even true. Humanists often champion political secularism so they weigh in on the debate to clarify this. Thing is… I can't imagine anything more banal and stupid to be getting irate about. Sure, it’s a minor point of religious freedom that needs clarity but in getting so heavily invested the Humanist community has become a Hegelian dialectic - rising to meet the loudest voices with its mirrored opposite and sometimes looking just as silly. Often these minor points can overtake these communities and characterise them into pedantic lobbying, rather than a rich way of life.
Nutritionally, Easter eggs are actually packed with sugar; it being their main ingredient and all. Usually 50-60% of an egg is entirely sugar. You only need 20% cocoa solids.
We neglected to talk about many of the conventional philosophical and theological themes of Easter in our episode. Especially interesting are the biblical ideas of resurrection and the actions of Jesus and Judas, which we're keen to discuss on a later episode.
Easter is full of strange rituals and weird traditions, many of which we chat about in the podcast. Australians have replaced the symbolic rabbit with their native bilbie, the former of which is considered a pest and the latter of which is endangered. We also chatted about some odd behaviour involving willows branches. Probably the most bizarre is the shaping of butter lambs, the form of which apparently wards off Satan and prevents him from entering an Easter meal. This anti-Satan spread is a Russian Orthodox practice and is testimony to the vast and varied nature of Christian faith across the globe. When there are nearly as many variations of Christianity as there are Christians then you're gonna get some seemingly odd things.
Traditionally, the festival predates our current calendar and relies on the old Hebrew Calendar, having to happen after the equinox so isn't easy to calculate. Many Christians hold different ideas about the date of Easter itself owing to the fact that Passover follows the moon on the Hebrew calendar and not the sun like the Gregorian and Julian calendar. Some Christian communities such as Puritans, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses don’t even observe the celebrations at all, believing them to be arbitrary additions to scripture or even sinful.
The origins of Easter spring from an organic combination of Pagan and Jewish practices. The name Easter itself is probably a derivation of a Germanic pagan goddess Ostre who was worshipped in England and had a month was named after her. The common Harvest feast in her honour was morphed with Abrahamic practices like Pascha (or Passover) as culture transitioned and Christianity was adopted. The Passover meal is so named because the Egyptian plague passed over Jewish households who marked their doors, sparing their firstborns from God's wrath (one of many historiographical rituals that retain and remember past events in Jewish history).
Jesus must have been absolutely stacked to lift that boulder.
Most of the symbology and practices of Easter are tied in with earlier Jewish practices, the general procreative themes of spring and old pagan traditions. Norwegians apparently go skiing and watch murder-mysteries for Easter. Easter eggs are a much more novel thing and people decorated them to symbolise the empty tomb and new beginnings. Their decoration used to be with red to represent the blood of Christ.
There is some debate with Neo-pagans as to how much history is appropriated, revised or just straight up fabricated. Some modern pagans seem to know all about what druids got up to in ancient times when most historical experts are sceptically clueless. Furthermore, darker elements of older religions from a more brutal time are often entirely ignored by people who really just want to revive some basic aesthetic and novelty in one or two practices. This is all enjoyable but lets not get carried away and think that we've resurrected a historically accurate and just as fleshed out pagan attitude to life. Pagans didn’t just take their religion seriously at one off mead festivals or when they got home on reddit - they lived these beliefs in a completely different context and probably took them quite seriously. Maintaining that historical continuity through traditions is important but not seamless (how can it be?). Whatever the historical reality, Paganism is a great excuse to get boozey and to affirm and enjoy life.
The real issue is moving past gimmicks and novelty and thinking about if and how paganism informs a deeper sense of existentialism or navigates social issues. Its worst elements have issues with conceited (albeit harmless) superstitions like the belief in actual magical spells and hidden mythological creatures, as well as concealed self-importance of being able to know and control these realities. But pagans are generally amazing people - awed by the natural world and enthused by the gift of life in an eccentric community that is quietly subversive in the most positive of ways.
Non-Christians often jump on the lent bandwagon, thinking that giving up a few addictive things could help improve their non-religious lives in the form of a detox. What's probably not realised in this casual appropriation of ritual however is that, in its "proper" context, lent is about more than just giving up chocolate or social media for a week or two. Its reflective of a broader attitude of how Christians generally relate to enjoying life and its luxuries with a submissive and humble gratitude and a subtext of asceticism. In some places like the Philippines this can be taken to the extreme. Not to mention lent is informed by a larger context of Christian commitment to belief which it relies upon to enrich its value and reasons for why someone should do it.
In the end we had to cut a massive heated debate about this that went on for over an hour. We've talked about this kind of thing before, namely in the context of yoga and mindfulness. Nye's position is that there is no real difference between secular and religious practices and that all traditions are borrowed and appropriated anyway; particularly if they're beneficial. My point was that we can unknowingly dilute or fundamentally change something by stripping it of its religious context. A Christian ideally partakes in lent because it’s a smaller part of a bigger way of life and demands are placed upon the believer that must be obeyed. It also involves integrated stuff like prayer and communal worship. For a theist, it’s done as part of a truth that should not be ignored - not because it "helps". A non-believer is merely using lent to fit their demands in a way that doesn't connect to a community or history. Not that's any sort of reason not to do it anyway! I think part of the confusion in this discussion was this was just a matter of clarity not what anyone morally "should" do. After all, an appropriated secular version of lent "could" be more meaningful to an atheist if they took it seriously enough… at the very least it would be quite different in an atheistic context. Where we found some common ground was in the dichotomy between commercialised festivals and community-driven history-rich festivals.
"Pancake day" as we know it was born out of the functionality of using up leftover ingredients before the fasting of lent.
On a point of secularism, Humanists have a vexatious tendency to be dragged far too deeply into debates about Easter eggs with Christians every year. The annual online argument is routinely played out like clockwork. It stems from a minority of Christians who claims that Christian identity and influence is being eroded by chocolate companies. These companies, for reasons of inclusivity, apparently refuse to use the word "Easter". Most of the time this isn’t even true. Humanists often champion political secularism so they weigh in on the debate to clarify this. Thing is… I can't imagine anything more banal and stupid to be getting irate about. Sure, it’s a minor point of religious freedom that needs clarity but in getting so heavily invested the Humanist community has become a Hegelian dialectic - rising to meet the loudest voices with its mirrored opposite and sometimes looking just as silly. Often these minor points can overtake these communities and characterise them into pedantic lobbying, rather than a rich way of life.
Nutritionally, Easter eggs are actually packed with sugar; it being their main ingredient and all. Usually 50-60% of an egg is entirely sugar. You only need 20% cocoa solids.
We neglected to talk about many of the conventional philosophical and theological themes of Easter in our episode. Especially interesting are the biblical ideas of resurrection and the actions of Jesus and Judas, which we're keen to discuss on a later episode.