# Christian Fundamentalists vs. Halloween **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2002, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226 "2002-10-28T07:52:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/141 "2003-10-08T14:19:35Z")
Some churches now do “Resurrection Eggs”, which apparently are plastic eggs that you open, and something inside them (say a rubber band) tells a “story” about the first easter, as it were. Anyway, we still color eggs. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/142 "2003-10-08T23:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by APB \* > **Not necessarily. The Eostre-Easter theory rests only on a single comment by Bede and it has long troubled the experts that there are no other sources mentioning a goddess called ‘Eostre’ (despite all the ingenious attempts to come up with the Ishtar-type comparisons). Many historians therefore think that Bede had simply fallen for a dodgy piece of folk etymology. It would be a bit like guessing that Thanksgiving was an attempt to hijack the commemoration of the mysterious pagan goddess Novem. Also the spring equinox (there is no such thing as the ‘Spring Solstice’) never coincided with Eosturmonath.** Show me an alternate theory. Every dictionary and word origin source I’ve ever seen lists the Eoster connection. The Spring Goddess was also variously called Eastre, Astarte, Eostra, Eostur, Eastra, and Eastur. I suppose it could just be a coincidence but I doubt it. The only alternate theory is the word is derived from “Ostern” or 'sunrise." The weight of scholarly consenus as well as common sense comes down pretty solidly for the Goddess. (I meant to say equinox, btw, I do know the difference). > [@](#): > > **Actually, there is no real evidence that Christmas trees do derive from pagan traditions. Although the alternative story involving Luther is also wrong (or at least not the whole story), Christmas trees can only be documented back to the late Middle Ages. That is far too late for it to be plausibly suggested as some sort of pagan survival. There is slightly more evidence that Easter eggs might derive from pagan traditions, although even then that theory is mostly just guesswork.** If by “Christmas tree” you mean the trees with the tinsel and the star on top, you’re right but it was an ancient pagan tradition to bring evergreens into homes as a token of optimism and good luck during the winter. Germany had a tradition of Yule trees (living evergreens grown in pots within household) long before Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Heathen\_DJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@The\_Heathen\_DJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Heathen_DJ)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/143 "2003-10-09T00:42:11Z")
> [@](#): > > [If by “Christmas tree” you mean the trees with the tinsel and the star on top, you’re right but it was an ancient pagan tradition to bring evergreens into homes as a token of optimism and good luck during the winter. Germany had a tradition of Yule trees (living evergreens grown in pots within household) long before Christianity. \*\* But what about “Channukah Bush(es)”? I thought these were the stuff of legend, but a new friend last year SHOWED me the one in their living room! MP, Lou ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/144 "2003-10-09T10:38:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Show me an alternate theory. \*\* Certainly. Once again, Hutton provides a useful summary of the current academic thinking on the subject. > [@](#): > > \*\*There remains, however, the problem of why the Germanic-speaking areas of Europe, in sharp contrast to the others, did not derive their name for this celebration from the Passover, but from a term which is rendered into modern German as Ostern and modern English as Easter. On the face of it, the issue ought to have been solved by Bede in the early eighth century, as part of his work on the calendar mentioned earlier. He declared that the name had derived from that of a goddess, Eostre, after whom the month in which Easter fell had been dubbed the ‘Eøstur’-month. This passage has been so often quoted without any inspection or criticism that it is necessary to stress that it is subject to all the reservations lodged by [Alexander] Tille against Bede’s assertions concerning the ‘Mother Night’, cited in the section dealing with Christmas. It falls into that category of interpretations which Bede admitted to be his own, rather than generally agreed or proven fact. A number of German scholars cast doubt upon its utility during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, although not with sufficient evidence to disprove it in turn. Two facts do seem to emerge from the discussion. One is that versions of the name given by Bede were used widely among speakers of Germanic languages during or shortly after his time; thus the Christian festival was known as _Ostarstuopha_ in the Main valley during the eighth and nineth centuries. The other is that the Anglo-Saxon _eastre_, signifying both the festival and the season of spring, is associated with a set of words in various Indo-European languages, signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event, such as the Greek Eos, the Roman Aurora, and the Indian Ushas. It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede’s Eostre was a Germanic dawn-deity who was venerated, approximately, at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon ‘Estor-monath’ simply meant ‘the month of opening’ or ‘the month of beginnings,’ and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season but merely, like Eos and Aurora, with the dawn itself. > > With the removal of this shadowy deity from the canon of historical certainty, there evaporates any reliable evidence for a pre-Christian festival in the British Isles during the time which became March and April.\*\* > > Ronald Hutton, _The Stations of the Sun: a history of the ritual year in Britain_ (Oxford University Press, 1996, paperback edition 2001), pp. 180-1. You can find the extensive literature on the controversy via Hutton’s notes. You may think that the goddess theory is ‘common sense’, but the whole point about this argument is that such an assumption now seems just a preconception coloured by one particular historical fashion. It’s not only that specific ideas about the origins of specific festivals, be it Halloween or Easter, have been called into question. Rather it is that academic historians now recognise that the general theory that Christian traditions appropriated pagan ones was more often than not just an assumption and that it was therefore not ‘common sense’ to use that assumption to fill the very extensive gaps in our knowledge. The older approach was inherently circular. It is now in retreat on almost all fronts. Hutton is also very good on the whole ‘evergreens in houses’ issue. ---
**Author:** ![Witch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/258eb7/32.png) [@Witch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Witch)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/145 "2003-10-09T12:27:24Z")
Funny. Up until this thread, I’ve never come cross any literature disputing the pre-christian (i.e pagan) origins of the traditions we’re discussing. Seems a bit like revisionist history to me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/146 "2003-10-09T15:10:41Z")
There is no real question that Christians adopted Pagan traditions and rituals. The only people who dispute it tend to be fundie apologists. Bede wasn’t mistaken. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of Hutton. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/147 "2003-10-09T15:19:47Z")
I should add that seasonal and asrtonomocal events (such as spring or dawn) were not seen as being distinguishable from the activities of gods and goddesses. The sun, the moon, the stars and the planets were all deified. Eos as dawn was a deity. Dawn was not seen as a mechanical, physical event but as a divine one. Hutton’s distinction is therefore completely specious. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/148 "2003-10-09T15:26:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*There is no real question that Christians adopted Pagan traditions and rituals. The only people who dispute it tend to be fundie apologists. > \*\* I agree with that. So whats wrong with adoption? Holidays are supposed to be fun(well ,most of them) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/149 "2003-10-09T15:33:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*There is no real question that Christians adopted Pagan traditions and rituals. The only people who dispute it tend to be fundie apologists. > > Bede wasn’t mistaken. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of Hutton. \*\* Whether Hutton is right or wrong, I wouldn’t call him a “fundie apologist”. He’s a pretty well respected scholar. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/150 "2003-10-09T16:06:02Z")
I’'d never heard of Hutton before today, so I wasn’t sure if he was a fundie or not. I said Pagan origins “tend” to be disputed by fundies. I did some googling on Hutton and he seems to write a lot about pre-Christian, Pagan Europe. I didn’t get the impression from reading the summaries of his books that he really denies pagan influence on Christianity but just poses some alternate theories for some things. As I said, the distinction between Eos as a Goddess and Eos as a mechanical, solar event was not the kind of distinction that was made in ancient times. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/151 "2003-10-10T10:20:15Z")
As **Captain Amazing** says, Hutton is most certainly not a fundie apologist - he’s a prominent neo-Pagan, arguably now the most famous neo-Pagan in the UK, although he’s always been rather coy as to whether he’s actually a practising Wiccan. Nor does he deny that there was _some_ pagan influence on _some_ later folk customs. No, his point is the much more interesting one that previous generations of scholars completely misunderstood the nature and extent of that influence. Their great mistake was to start from the assumption that such influence must have occurred and then naïvely read back from the later (often much later) evidence. That approach had already been discredited among serious folklorists in Britain even before Hutton began writing on the subject. Hutton’s achievement has been to integrate that more critical approach with more mainstream academic research and, as I say, professional historians have generally been very impressed. Hutton, I’m sure, would argue that the most important point of all is that the older approach distorted - even falsified - everyone’s understanding of pre-Christian paganism. Unsurprisingly, assumptions built upon assumptions built upon the later and unrelated evidence, all wrapped up with questionable religious agendas, did not produce accurate history. He would say that almost everything you think you know about pre-Christian paganism in the British Isles is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/152 "2003-10-11T07:08:29Z")
In keeping with the season, here are a [two](http://www.family.org/pplace/schoolkid/a0017922.cfm) [articles](http://www.family.org/pplace/schoolkid/a0022930.cfm) about the anxiety fundamentalist Christians face this time of year. ---
**Author:** ![Blackeyes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Blackeyes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackeyes)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/153 "2003-10-11T19:54:16Z")
When I was running this morning (first time in a month! yay!) I passed by the local Lutheran church and it had a banner up advertising “Trunk or Treat: An alternative to Halloween. 6-8pm.” ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/154 "2003-10-25T07:10:57Z")
I had no idea some Lutherans had a problem with a Halloween. They always seemed as one of the more level-headed protestant sects. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/155 "2003-10-25T13:45:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **Show me an alternate theory. Every dictionary and word origin source I’ve ever seen lists the Eoster connection.** So what? The fact remains that every single one of those sources you are familiar with go back to the SINGLE Bede speculation, with NOTHING else to back them up. I’m reminded of another bunch of hooey that managed to worm its way into a great deal of literature, the “language” of vocalizations used by a specific band of rhesus macaques. You could find source after source stating that one call had one specific meaning, another had another specific meaning, etc. This was in textbooks, on documentaries, in magazine articles, even stated in legitimate scientific review articles. This was chosen as an object lesson for a class I took years ago as an undergrad. We were to pick a source that made the claim and to a citation trace. Every trace we did went back to the same paper. This paper made NO semantic claims at all. Instead, it noted some fairly weak situational correlations. Then other authors took the weak correlations and mentioned them a little more strongly. Then it fed on itself from there. Trace the sources back. It doesn’t matter if every single current source agrees on something if all of those sources ultimately got their information from a single flawed source. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/156 "2003-10-25T13:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Witch \* > \*\*Funny. > Up until this thread, I’ve never come cross any literature disputing the pre-christian (i.e pagan) origins of the traditions we’re discussing. > Seems a bit like revisionist history to me. \*\* Please demonstrate that “revisionist history” is automatically identical to “bad history”. I would like to see you work this out in steps. Here are some examples of “revisionist history”. Classic history: Custer was a hero and great man who was a martyr to a great cause, overwhelmed by perfidious redskins who used treachery to kill him and his soldiers. Revisionist history: Custer was a self-serving man who put his reputation above good tactics, split his forces three times (verifiable), and virtually asked to be annihilated. Classic history: George Washington was infallable, a veritable demigod, without flaw, all virtuous, all good. Revisionist history: George Washington was a human being, not a demigod. Classic history: The British government was evil for passing the proclamation of 1763, which prevented the Colonists from taking their rightful place in lands west of the Appalachians and instead gave it to a bunch of savage redskins who wouldn’t use it properly. It was a direct attempt to punish the Colonitsts. Revisionist history: The Proclamation of 1763 was an attempt to honor promises to allies made during war against France that did not sit well with colonists who wanted to steal land from the people who were already living there. I could keep going on, but please show me how all of the revisionist examples I stated above are inferior to their classical antecedents. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/157 "2003-10-25T13:53:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*There is no real question that Christians adopted Pagan traditions and rituals. The only people who dispute it tend to be fundie apologists. > > Bede wasn’t mistaken. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of Hutton. \*\* Hutton is a neopagan. Of course, I doubt you will admit to this. Isn’t it amazing just how much anti-Christians sound like the weaseliest of fundies when their own pet dogmas get put under question? ---
**Author:** ![Calliope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Calliope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calliope)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/158 "2003-10-25T14:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NDP \* > \*\*I had no idea some Lutherans had a problem with a Halloween. They always seemed as one of the more level-headed protestant sects. \*\* I believe this is likely because Halloween is truly a Catholic holiday. Many protestants are starting to celebrate 10/31 as Reformation Day instead, in honor of Martin Luther’s nailing of the thesis to the church door. The strangest thing about the fundamentalist objection to Halloween is that many of them celebrate “harvest festivals” at church instead of Halloween. It is the harvest festival that harkens back to the pagan rites. Afterall, Samhain is the celebration of the harvest. Halloween, on the other hand, or All Hallow’s Eve, has its origins in the Catholic church. Perhaps the fundamentalist objection is actually anti-Catholic, but it sounds more PC to say it’s anti-pagan. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/159 "2003-10-25T14:18:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Please demonstrate that “revisionist history” is automatically identical to “bad history”. I would like to see you work this out in steps. > > Here are some examples of “revisionist history”. > Classic history: Custer was a hero and great man who was a martyr to a great cause, overwhelmed by perfidious redskins who used treachery to kill him and his soldiers. \*\* This itself is revisionist history depending on who you ask. > [@](#): > > \*\*Revisionist history: Custer was a self-serving man who put his reputation above good tactics, split his forces three times (verifiable), and virtually asked to be annihilated. This is actually closer to what you call “classic history”(except for teh “self serving” part).Actual history is about detailing the facts surrounding events which have occured. “Hitler was evil” is NOT history of anykind. “Nazis under Hitler’s regime killed around six million jews during the holocaust” IS verifiable history. “The holocaust never happened” is revisionist history. Yes, revisitionist history is BAD HISTORY. > [@](#): > > \*\*Classic history: George Washington was infallable, a veritable demigod, without flaw, all virtuous, all good. \*\* I am glad I did not receive my historical education from whatever books you have been reading.Again, subjective judgements about the moral character or divine favor a person may had are NOT history. > [@](#): > > \*\*Revisionist history: George Washington was a human being, not a demigod. \*\* Again, not revisionist history by any stretch. > [@](#): > > \*\*Classic history: The British government was evil for passing the proclamation of 1763, which prevented the Colonists from taking their rightful place in lands west of the Appalachians and instead gave it to a bunch of savage redskins who wouldn’t use it properly. It was a direct attempt to punish the Colonitsts. > > Revisionist history: The Proclamation of 1763 was an attempt to honor promises to allies made during war against France that did not sit well with colonists who wanted to steal land from the people who were already living there. _sigh_ > [@](#): > > \*\*I could keep going on, but please show me how all of the revisionist examples I stated above are inferior to their classical antecedents. \*\* Fallacies, fallacies and more fallacies… ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226/160 "2003-10-25T16:55:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > “The holocaust never happened” is revisionist history. > Yes, revisitionist history is BAD HISTORY. You’re hereby effectively allowing holocaust deniers to appropriate the term “revisionist”. [A GQ thread on the connotations of the term as used by historians.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=196679) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-fundamentalists-vs-halloween/134226.md?page=9)