

 Huge Christian Holiday Today and Google Celebrates Cesar Chavez? - DanielBMarkham

Huh?<p>I'm not a Christian, just wondering if there were some sort of policy at Google that prevented them from celebrating the obvious holiday today for so many of the world's peoples.<p>https://www.google.com/<p>Anybody know anything about this? Cesar Chavez? If I didn't know better, I'd say Google was picking a fight simply looking for more PR, but that couldn't be it.<p>ADD: Please no religious bickering. Google could have posted a picture of a bunny, or a couple of Easter eggs. My point is that they run so many obscure holidays, why miss one of those celebrated by huge numbers of people?
======
jrajav
In case there's any confusion, they have never done doodles on Easter.[1][2]
Nor do they have any obligation to... Not because of any kind of bogus
commentary on the nature of Easter, the celebration of it, or religion, but
simply because _they have no obligation to_. Just like they have no obligation
to keep a completely free product alive. Get over yourselves, everyone.

[1]: And several other minor holidays.

[2]: <http://www.google.com/doodles/finder/>

Edit: Whoops! I missed 2000 somehow. <http://www.google.com/doodles/happy-
easter-2000>

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I missed the part where I said they had to do anything.

Care to point that out to me? Happy to take it out. My question was really
about how the selection was made, as this choice seemed odd, not about what
they should do or not.

Got anything on that?

~~~
jrajav
Interesting way to put it.. So you're not saying they should have put up an
Easter doodle, you're just expressing incredulity that they didn't?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It is something I do not understand. I asked the community for further
information.

Google is free to do whatever it wants. Anybody know how they make selections?
That's about all there is to it.

------
jpdoctor
OT, but you gotta love the time precision of the religious holidays. From the
wiki:

Easter is determined on the basis of lunisolar cycles. The lunar year consists
of 30-day and 29-day lunar months, generally alternating, with an embolismic
month added periodically to bring the lunar cycle into line with the solar
cycle. In each solar year (1 January to 31 December inclusive), the lunar
month beginning with an ecclesiastical new moon ( _JP note: Not the
astronomical full moon_ ) falling in the 29-day period from 8 March to 5 April
inclusive is designated as the paschal lunar month for that year. Easter is
the third Sunday in the paschal lunar month, or, in other words, the Sunday
after the paschal lunar month's 14th day. The 14th of the paschal lunar month
is designated by convention as the Paschal full moon, although the 14th of the
lunar month may differ from the date of the astronomical full moon by up to
two days.[46] Since the ecclesiastical new moon falls on a date from 8 March
to 5 April inclusive, the paschal full moon (the 14th of that lunar month)
must fall on a date from 21 March to 18 April inclusive.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
And this is why I posted this -- I suspect the problem here is a bug in the
system: birthdays and regular holidays are easy enough to encode. Easter is
way whacked.

I didn't want to call Google out on a bug. I'd probably be wrong. Thought it
would be easier just to wonder why the inconsistency.

As I can see from the "quality" of the comments, that was a mistake. Oh well.

~~~
claudius
> And this is why I posted this -- I suspect the problem here is a bug in the
> system: birthdays and regular holidays are easy enough to encode. Easter is
> way whacked.

It is relatively easy to compute the exact dates for the next N years (or
check Wikipedia). Given that Google has various random doodles for birthdays,
anniversaries etc. that do not repeat every year, I don’t think it would be
difficult to have N one-off doodles for the next N years.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _It is relatively easy to compute the exact dates for the next N years (or
> check Wikipedia)._

And would you display for the Julian calendar or Gregorian calendar, since
different christian sects use different definitions of "the equinox"?

~~~
claudius
Use the Julian calendar in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and the
Gregorian in the West? With country-level resolution, it should not be too
difficult to choose the appropriate date – if everything else fails, you can
likely pin it to the relevant bank holidays in the country.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _Use the Julian calendar in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and the
> Gregorian in the West?_

Why would google assign insignificance to those who think the Julian calendar
is correct in the West and Gregorian in the East?

------
kristopolous
the real surprise is that it appears to be the _only_ doodle for the day. In
other countries that celebrate easter, there's no doodle at all. For instance,

the uk: <http://www.google.co.uk/>

france: <http://www.google.fr/>

italy: <http://www.google.it/>

russia: <http://www.google.ru/>

spain: <http://www.google.es/>

mexico: <http://www.google.com.mx/>

argentina: <http://www.google.com.ar/>

new zealand: <http://www.google.com.ar/>

canada: <http://www.google.ca/>

------
claudius
Everybody™ knows that it’s Easter, you don’t have to tell people ‘OH LOOK IT
IS EASTER HERE IS A BUNNY’. How many people, do you think, knew of Cesar
Chavez? Hence, might it not be more appropriate then to recall those who are
not already in everyone’s mind?

------
blueprint
Easter is no longer about Jesus, and his real teaching and guidance for human
beings isn't transmitted in this religious holiday. Therefore it's not as
beneficial to the world to celebrate easter as it is to celebrate Chavez'
specific contributions.

When the actual teaching of Christ is revived then it would be more beneficial
to humanity to celebrate than Chavez.

So I can see why Google made this choice, considering their brand.

~~~
Shorel
And at the beginning it had nothing to do with the Christian religion, so in a
sense, it was never about 'Jesus'.

Easter is a fertility spring celebration retconned by the Romans into
something else. That's why we have eggs and bunnies, symbols of fertility.

~~~
blueprint
Jesus also has nothing to do with the Christian religion.

Of course I'll get downvoted for saying this as if it's insensitive. The fact
is that to claim that Christianity has the real teaching of Christ is
equivalent in meaning to killing Jesus twice. Being attached to what
Christianity teaches people to do is not a way to recover the teaching that
Jesus tried to leave humans, but the miserable reality today is that the
majority of people blindly believe the validity of religions. They see things
in the exact opposite way.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> Jesus also has nothing to do with the Christian religion.

I don't think it's correct to say that. Christianity _is_ based on the life
and teachings of Jesus - although it also incorporates Abrahamism -, so it
does have a lot to do with him.

That said, Christianity was born long after Jesus, when the Roman empire
adopted it. So Jesus' philosophy and the Christian religion are not exactly
the same thing.

~~~
blueprint
"Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus"

It may be possible for modern Christians to claim this while sounding
reasonable (because it seems this way, listening to the words), but the
statement falls apart when we try to verify.

Specifically, I've met and had in depth discussions with many Christians
(including priests and lay people) from different schools. None of them could
tell me what the teaching of Jesus is. Some were able to tell me words that
they had learned, like "love" or "truth" or "law", but upon my questions made
through those terms (e.g. What is love?), no one among them could answer with
substance.

Other religions have the same condition. Buddhist monks, for example, do not
know Buddha's teaching. But they use the name of Buddha to propagate their own
words. Their one aim in doing so is to deceive people. I don't say this
without extensive proof and verification. If we make a gist of what Gautama
Buddha taught for 45 years, we come up with two things: the theory of
transmigration, and the law of cause and effect. He taught this to people in
order to explain what exists, and how it exists. But there are no Buddhists
today who know, nor want to know, this extremely valuable teaching of Buddha.
Instead, they claim that Buddha taught the four noble truths, precepts, and
that meditation is a way to enlightenment. They claim that Buddha taught that
the way to nirvana is to never be reborn again and that Buddha taught like
that. That's absolutely wrong. Buddha taught people to save themselves through
what exists in the truth. The purpose of his continuous effort was to make the
quality of people's lives go up. He regarded life very preciously. That's why
he taught people to confirm everything before accepting it. How could a Buddha
teach people to kill themselves forever?

Teaching always stays in the questions. Without substantial matters (a problem
that people can confirm) then there is no way in the teaching from the problem
to the answer. The religious scriptures only have answers, but no questions,
that's why they have no ways for living people. So it's not helpful at all to
people. On the contrary, if we confirm what the result is in reality,
religious practice only makes people serve and become a sacrifice for the
dead.

I can't find any evidence that Jesus Christ recommended that people start or
propagate religions. I agree that Jesus was a great philosopher and a saint.
He sacrificed his own life in order to awaken humanity -- but it's because he
told people the truth about religions that he was killed by the religious
people in those times. That's how I know that education/propagation of
Abrahamic texts is quite antithetical to the life activities of Jesus himself,
and their inclusion in a religion precludes the coexistence of the true
teaching of a saint such as Jesus.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> "Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus" > It may be
> possible for modern Christians to claim this while sounding reasonable
> (because it seems this way, listening to the words), but the statement falls
> apart when we try to verify.

Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus, and the belief he's
the messiah from the canonical gospels (Old Testament). The religion was
founded to gather his followers.

So, yes, you can say Christianity is based on that.

> Specifically, I've met and had in depth discussions with many Christians
> (including priests and lay people) from different schools. None of them
> could tell me what the teaching of Jesus is. Some were able to tell me words
> that they had learned, like "love" or "truth" or "law", but upon my
> questions made through those terms (e.g. What is love?), no one among them
> could answer with substance.

Jesus preachings weren't in a philosophical level, so you'll never get an
answer from a Christian about the nature of love ("What is love?"). For this
you want Plato.

In his parables [1], though, he left messages about the importance of loving
and forgiving, among others. These teachings just aren't synthesized.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus>

> (...) but it's because he told people the truth about religions that he was
> killed by the religious people in those times.

He neither preached in favor _or_ against religions, so it's untrue to say he
was killed for that. Jesus was crucified for political reasons, for Rome
couldn't let a gentile gather a following. That was standard practice during
the Roman Empire, to publicly kill local/tribal leaders.

> That's how I know that education/propagation of Abrahamic texts is quite
> antithetical to the life activities of Jesus himself, and their inclusion in
> a religion precludes the coexistence of the true teaching of a saint such as
> Jesus.

The fact Abrahamism is incorporated is an historical accident - these were the
gospels of the people who funded Christianity. For instance, the talion law
from Exodus ("eye for an eye...") is later discussed by Jesus in a different
perspective ("whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also").

So, yes, it can be conflicting for religions that postulate following whatever
is written - or worse, the parts they want you to follow, since the gospels
have been manipulated endlessly. But the fact they were part of the
_foundation_ of Christianity isn't necessarily bad, because it's part of their
history.

------
bartonfink
It does seem odd to not even pay it lip service with eggs replacing the O's.

~~~
redm
Bing celebrated the appropriate holiday so expect new BingItOn commercials.

------
DanielBMarkham
FWIW, Google Easter 2000

<http://ow.ly/i/1NegP>

