How Textbooks Push Children to the Left

9044303-largeAre you surprised that leftist ideas have penetrated the minds of the people?  Chalk up this reality to the leftist teachers and, especially, to the left-oriented textbooks now in use in our secondary schools.  One book in particular that has been gaining traction in New York City in recent years is “The Americans.”

Although even the leftist teachers claim not to like this textbook used in U.S. history (a one-year course required in NYC for all juniors) because it is so skimpy on facts and is written in an opaque style, any informed reader would have to agree that it is one of the most politically correct textbooks one could imagine. Reading this book, one gets the message that the history of America is a theme of victimization. The list of victims is well known: Native Americans, women, labor, immigrants, blacks, farmers, urban dwellers, the mentally ill, migrant workers, unions, etc. “The Americans” is a somewhat diluted version of Howard Zinn’s openly communist college textbook, “A People’s History of the United States.” It is also worth adding that this reference to Zinn’s “communism” is not putting labels on anyone, and is not a McCarthy-like type of red-baiting of an innocent individual; Zinn openly announced his communism decades ago when he taught at Boston University.

This author surveyed the index of “The Americans,” and found that in the 1,045 pages of text, there were only two references to Christianity, no references to Protestants, and five references to Roman Catholicism. There were zero references to God, zero references to Jesus Christ, and only one reference to evangelicals. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are described as “minor activists,” not as traitors who sold out their country for $10,000. Their being traitors is no longer supposition or in any way debatable, but has been revealed conclusively by Harvey Klehr et al. in their monumental study The Secret World of American Communism based on documents made available after the collapse of the USSR. Prof. Klehr is a professor at Emory University and the book was published by Yale University Press, hardly right-wing organizations.

The same textbook has no index reference to John Calvin and the powerful Reformation currents that were alive and well in the 17th and into the 18thcenturies. And in the textbook’s sections on the “Pilgrims and the Puritans,” the focus goes from Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson (essentially depicted as the first feminist victim of an uptight male patriarchy) to King Philip’s War between the Puritans and Wampanoag Indians in 1675. Although it’s not said outright, the book means to suggest that there was a certain bloodthirsty aspect to the Puritan culture. They were encroaching and exploitative, so the Indians had to fight back. The textbook fails to mention anything about the fifty-year peace treaty between the Wampanoags and the Puritans, which held up beautifully until Chief Massasoit and the Puritan leader John Winthrop died.

It fails to mention Thomas Hooker who founded Connecticut and, with his co-founders, wrote the first state constitution – “The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” – that was a model for representative government in the colonies. The book does not mention that Anne Hutchinson, though she was a woman, was permitted to lead Bible discussions at her home in Massachusetts. Only when she began teaching antinomian doctrine (i.e., that it was not necessary for a Christian to follow moral law) was she reprimanded, and banished when she failed to submit to the teachings of the colonial leaders. Moreover, the book fails to highlight the incredible faith of the Puritans as they actually succeeded, despite some flaws, on building that “city on the hill” out of the wilderness, and the debt of gratitude we owe to the righteous and faithful Puritans, people who walked the walk of faith wearing the whole armor of God.

Further, under their original charter, the Puritans set up a kind of primitive communism where everybody shared equally in the town of Plymouth, but they soon perceived that this did not work, and divided the land into portions for each family, where the efforts of each person would decide his well-being up to a point (they never stopped being good neighbors and helping each other). All of this information is not noted in any form in the textbook and, although it is not said outright, an inexperienced young reader will come away with the impression that the Puritans and Pilgrims were a narrow-minded and racist group, and besides that they were Christian fanatics (like those terrible evangelicals of our own era).

Would not an even-handed approach to colonial U.S. history discuss William Penn and the founding of Pennsylvania?  In that colony, there were no armed conflicts with the Native Americans during the colonial period. Pennsylvania had no army until the French and Indian War in the 1750s.  William Penn was an incredibly righteous and informed Quaker.  He wrote many books, including the marvelous book “No Cross, No Crown,” as well as others about politics, Christianity, and history.  His moral excellence and writing gifts are not even alluded to, nor are those of Thomas Hooker of Connecticut or Increase and Cotton Mather of Massachusetts (more than 500 works between them on a variety of topics).  Is there any governor among our fifty states who could write a theology book today?  Or any other book of clear intellectual merit for that matter?

The skewed and distorted information and disinformation in “The Americans” is too extensive in over 1,000 pages to catalogue completely in this article.  However, it reflects a mindset that is not unique to this volume.  This textbook represents a besetting ignorance as well as congeries of biases that are epidemic in our country and disrupting the minds of the people.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Paul Marks

    “McCarthy style Red Baiting of an innocent individual” – either refute M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History” (the standard defence of Senator Joseph McCarthy) or stop that sort of casual insult. The 1960s and what came over (i.e. the Marxist takeover, under the names of “Critical Theory” and so on, of such cultural institutions as the education system) happened as a direct result of the stab in the back (by “respectable” people) of Joe McCarthy and others. The left watched and observed that “common” “vulgar” people would not be allowed to expose Communists from “respectable” families (that even non Communists would help destroy people like Senator McCarthy), they sensed WEAKNESS and they attacked. It is no good complaining about the Frankfurt School (Cultural Marxist) propaganda of textbooks such as “The Americans” when you just accept the Communist image of McCarthy (in reality a very complex figure – a mixture of virtues and serious weaknesses) – the Frankfurt School types will (rightly) note that you are not really going to FIGHT them (just complain about them a bit), and they will just carry on with what the brainwashing of children – and so on.

    • lawmed

      Thank you, Paul, for your timely, factual and powerful message. You have compiled a precise and tight summary, tying together important themes and identifying the “schools” and players and their memes. I, among many, recognize the efforts of Senator McCarthy. The McCarran Senate Internal Security Committee’s efforts to probe US State Department infiltration,including at the highest levels, was affirmatively stymied by then-US President Harry Truman – by executive order. There were many players, both foreign and domestic, including in the White House itself. The reality and extent of Communist influences and operatives, in academia, in Hollywood and elsewhere – is legion. Students from grade school through graduate school have been indoctrinated by leftist ideologues for generations, including by Communist-leaning teachers’ unions. The New York City Teachers Union, established in 1916, had a long and deep, albeit unofficial, alliance with the American Communist Party, The rest, they say, is history.

  • seewithyourowneyes

    Last year I watched a show -it was either on pbs or the history channel- that claimed to sort fact from fiction about Thanksgiving. It seemed cute and innocuous at first, but then it claimed that, although the Pilgrims almost starved their first year, their communistic system of shared fields kept them alive through the hard times and allowed a bountiful harvest the next year!!!!!! ! I almost choked to hear this lie. The written records left by the Pilgrims are absolutely clear that they nearly starved while using a communist system, but were more successful once they allowed individual ownership.

    • Rocky Mountain

      I don’t think the Pilgrims read Marx and I don’t think sharing under the conditions they were under had any relationship to communism. There wasn’t much to share anyway in the first few months of their settlement.

      • seewithyourowneyes

        Well, obviously the Pilgrims couldn’t have read Marx in the 1600’s.! But, like many utopian Christian sects, they did attempt a communal system of ownership not unlike Marx’s communism.
        My point is that the communal system failed the Pilgrims and they had more success once they adopted a system of individual ownership. My other point is that the “educational” tv program deliberately distorted this very well documented piece of history in order to falsely claim that communal ownership was what saved the Pilgrims.,
        The dishonesty of the Cultural Marxists, and the naivete of their “useful idiots,” is truly reaching epic proportions.

        • CowboyUp

          Rocky Mountain missed that lesson too, and apparently thinks the bad thinking behind Marxism originated with marx.. It’s pretty clear he or she doesn’t know much if anything about Plymouth Colony.
          William Bradford confirmed everything you said in his diary.
          Glad I missed that particular show, but I’ve seen enough like it that I’ve gone back to books.

    • tagalog

      Your take on the history of the Pilgrims’ first year in the New World is correct. Communal farming was abandoned when something like 1/2 to 1/3 of the original settlers starved or died of famine-related disease.

  • Jason P

    The Puritans of New England were intolerant fanatics as was Oliver Cromwell back in England. Let’s remember that Locke didn’t write his first letter on religious toleration until 1689. The exceptions are worth noting but the 17th century was a transitional century and that context should be respected.

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      “The Puritans of new England were intolerant fanatics…?” How so? You mean that persecuted sect in England, that was severe towards its own members, but allowed other religions, such as Judaism, to practice in their locality? The Puritans may have been enthusiastic about their religion, but they were in no way as “fanatic” as the Muslim Brotherhood is today.
      I understand that Cromwell massacred the Irish at Drogheda, for which he’s been justly blamed. But wasn’t he the guy who destroyed the power of the bishops in the Anglican church? Drove the Scots out of England? Kept the power-mad Charles I from getting back on the British throne? And refused the Kingship when they offered it to him? You have a stronger case with Cromwell, than with the Puritans.

      • JMJ

        Good grief, TheOrdinaryMan, you have an extremely warped view of English history. Cromwell was a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator who successfully controlled his own publicity machine and managed to hide his wickedness and unusual lusts from the general public for some years. He is, today, rightly reviled by almost all sensible Englishmen and seen for the bigoted and intolerant idiot that he actually was.
        Charles I was not ‘power-mad’ as you phrase it, he simply subscribed to a view of kingship that had ceased to be meaningful or relevant in the rapidly modernising England of that time and he was merely incapable of perceiving, or inventing, a new paradigm for monarchy.
        By the way, the Bishops are still the fundamental authority centres within the Church of England – their powers spiritual remain undiluted, and as they always were and must be in a catholic church. The Puritans left England in a huff because they believed in a miserable and dour form of Christianity that the majority in England would not embrace which was based on the ridiculous and heretical concept of ‘sola scriptura’ that still plagues a significant sector of American Christianity to this day.

        • John P.

          Spoken like a true antinomian and/or Armenian. Simply, the Puritans left England for religious and political liberty. Also, according to you, ‘sola scriptura’ is heretical and ridiculous? Really? The belief of ‘scripture alone’ for the Puritans and for many believers of today is simply the belief that there is no other authority for faith and practice but the scriptures of the bible. It doesn’t matter that the majority of England or even the whole world doesn’t believe it. You are of the ilk that want an ecclesiastical religious hierarchy to dispense truth and salvation to the laity as they see fit; this is the same man-made hierarchy the scripture condemns in Revelation referring to the Nicolaitans. What I and many other believers think is that there is only one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. We don’t need incense, prayers to the dead, a mediatrix, indulgences, purgatory, ‘holy’ eucharist, or any other man contrived ceremony or sacrament.

          • JMJ

            John P., Thank-you for proving with your words the very truth of my words about the ridiculous and probably heretical concept of ‘sola scriptura’. The Apostles clearly taught at the very beginning of the Faith that it’s the Spirit moving amongst the faithful that guides the Church – the Book is, at best, the sacred history of our faith and the repository of ideas and beliefs that are, or at one time or another were, current amongst us.

            The Bible is not inerrant for it is the Word of God filtered through the fallible minds of fallible men who had God given free will and therefore the freedom to listen and write whilst exercising their own prejudices and preconceptions. That is, and has always been from earliest Christian times, the teaching of all the mainstream churches, and so our Holy Book must be read whilst uttering prayers that the Spirit of God will guide our thoughts whilst we are so reading.

            The strange idea that Scripture as embodied in a book is somehow magically the only thing that a Christian needs in order to understand God is of very recent invention and would be a completely baffling and rather silly idea to those who knew Christ before His sacrifice, as well as to those who were present at the first Pentecost when the Spirit descended on them and moved them. They had no Bible to guide them, just the Spirit that moved them, yet they took our Faith out into the world and brought God’s love to our planet.

            Furthermore, there is no consensus amongst Christians as to what exactly constitutes the Bible – even the great Protestant reformers (amongst many, many others), Calvin, Zwingli and Luther that is, believed that some of its books were definitely not Scriptural and shouldn’t be included. To this day there are many Christians who doubt the Spiritual authenticity of some many of the books, and it is as easy to make a case against the inclusion of most of them as it is to make a case for their inclusion. The Book of Revelation, which book you mention as ‘Revelations’, was one of the books about which the Protestant reformers and many in the mainstream churches of the time had grave doubts. Even to this day most Christians doubt the Spiritual authenticity of that particular Book.

            By the way, Jesus was more than just a man – he was also God (one part of our Triune God, if you remember your Creed and your Catechism), which is a fact that you seem to have forgotten, but I may be wronging you there. However, the circular argument that you believe that the Bible is correct because the Bible says that it is correct is just plain silly, as is your assertion that “It doesn’t matter that the majority of England or even the whole world doesn’t believe it”, which statement reminds me of nothing more than the overheard comment of a proud mother at her incompetent son’s passing out parade – “Oh, look at my little Johnny; everyone is marching out of step except him.”
            The Apostles themselves instituted almost all (I say almost, please note, all) of the practices that the mainstream churches use today. From the church in India founded by Thomas, to the church in Egypt founded by Mark, to the church in Rome founded by Peter, to the church in Constantinople founded by Paul, to the church in Jerusalem founded by James, to the Syrian church founded by Andrew, to the Georgian Church founded also by Andrew, to the Armenian church founded by Jude and Bartholemew, the sameness of belief and practice is remarkable and consistent given the fact that the Apostles had to work in a day and age when there was little to no communication possible between them.
            I am sorry if you find those practices given by God through the Apostles to the Church Universal to be a distraction or to be unnecessary. I am sorry if you find that the symbols of Incense and water and lighted candles and such like things divert your thoughts from prayer. I am sorry if you find yourself at odds with the office of Bishop – an office instituted by the Apostles. I am sorry if the Mass, Holy Comunion or Holy Eucharist (call it what you will) that all all the Apostles gave to all the churches that they founded confuses you or upsets you. But I am not sorry that you have God in your life, even if you do believe that He exists only between the pages of a Book. Bless you, John P., in your simplicity and may your errors serve only to bring you closer to God, as I pray that mine will also do for me.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Yes, indeed, we have a pseudo-intellectual humanist making pronouncements in religious garb. I have neither the time nor patience to reply in-depth to your rambling rant, but I will say this: Go right ahead and trust in the mere traditions of men and in the power of religious bureaucracy. But I will place my trust in Christ alone and in the Scriptures which stand far above all man-made traditions. “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17)

        • TheOrdinaryMan

          Sounds like you’re a moral relativist in religious garb. So Charles I wasn’t power-mad? What do you call raising an army for the express purpose of destroying Parliament?
          (That resulted in not one, but two civil wars) Yes, his view of the kingship had “ceased to be meaningful” precisely because Parliament wouldn’t put up with dictators. Charles, a Scotsman, then raised an army in Scotland, and invaded England. Cromwell, leading the Parliamentary forces, drove the Scots out of England in 1648; and cast Charles into prison on the Isle of Wight. And the bishops were corrupt in Cromwell’s day, and they’re even worse today. How many scandal-clouds are hanging over the Archbishop of Canterbury today? What has the Anglican church done, except allow the ever-strengthening Muslim community to take over churches, and turn them into Mosques? The present-day Church of England is a joke. You think all you have to do is call Cromwell a bigot, and your point of view will be vindicated? No, sir, not in this ball park. Bring back Cromwell, Churchill, Disraeli, and Queen Victoria(Was she a bigot, too?)–real leaders are needed in England.

        • bluffcreek1967

          There’s nothing “ridiculous” nor “heretical” in the biblical concept of ‘sola scripture.’ The texts supporting this concept are very clear throughout both the OT and NT. It’s one thing to say I don’t agree with ‘sola scripture,’ it’s quite another to disprove it or to demonstrate that it’s a “heretical” doctrine.

          The Puritans who left England were far from perfect, but they sought to be faithful to the scriptures as they understood them. It was the Church of England that was, in many ways, heretical in that it departed from apostolic doctrines and simple NT ecclesiology many years earlier. The Puritans, at least, tried to return to apostolic simplicity as opposed to continuing the mere traditions of men which had ravaged both the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Church of England.

      • Jason P

        Killing Quakers is a start. Let’s remember that the Puritans left tolerant Holland to set up an intolerant theocracy in America.

        I wouldn’t go so far as to exonerate the Stuarts as JMJ has done (but he otherwise has some good points.) Let’s just say that before the Glorious Revolution liberalism did not stand on solid grounds.

        • Erudite Mavin

          See my post above.

        • Rocky Mountain


      • Erudite Mavin

        Have studied 17th century New England History for decades.
        I have over 150 9th great grandparents who arrived there
        in 1620s and 30s.
        Yes, the Puritans who were persecuted in England did the same to
        others in the colonies. Some killed.
        some Puritans who welcomed Quakers into their home for a meal while they were traveling, those Puritans were fined and worse.

        • Rocky Mountain

          The operative word here is “some” just as it is in so many cases where people want to lay the blame for a crime or social malady on an entire group.

        • seewithyourowneyes

          OMG. Why do we judge 17th century Caucasians by 21st century standards, while refusing to judge non-Westerners by any standards at all?. Yes, the Pilgrims were “dour,” but remember that both Catholics and Protestants routinely tortured members of opposing sects during that era. Fining those who helped Quakers sounds mild according to the standards of the time. Witch burning, a veritable holocaust of women, was rampant in Europe for several hundred years, and more briefly in America. During the same period, Muslims were continuing on their own course of colonization, attacking the gates of Vienna, hoping to enslave or behead all who refused to convert or to accept the dhimmi status of a conquered and inferior people.
          The Western capacity for self-criticism, which should be a great strength to us, has somehow been perverted into a fetish of self-hatred. The only good Westerner is a self-hating Westerner, or something like that. I have nothing against “debunking” the founding fathers, but we must also put them into the context of their times. And what a false picture we paint if we debunk only our own history, while lowering our eyelids before the flaws and fraudulence of non-Western historical figures! Compare the Pilgrims to the Muslims, or to the Aztec conquest and enslavement of neighboring tribes .Seen in an historical perspective, even the dour Pilgrims moved society forward on the path to freedom.

          • Erudite Mavin

            You don’t understand what my post was about.
            Your assumption took your post to the edge of a cliff.

            As one who had over 150 9th great grandparents who arrived in New England in 1620s and 30s and over 75 9th grandparents who arrived in mid 1620s in New Amsterdam, now called New York and have studied that period along with my over 100 scholarly books on 1600 to 1700s, and my over 300 scholarly books on European History to the early middle ages. Have studied this over 40 years. Am also a member of the DAR having researched over 13 5th great grandfathers who fought in the Revolutionary War.

            No one was comparing Puritans with Muslims.
            Many of my relatives who are descendants of these same ancestors have been fighting in this war from day one and several are in the Middle East this minute fighting.

            Wonder how many here have done what I have, be part of a Republican group and countered Hamas – Muslims marches and rallies.

          • seewithyourowneyes

            I’m sorry if I blindsided you. I do believe the exasperation in my reply was very disproportionate to any problems I had with your post. I think my exasperation was cumulative, having read a lot of anti-Americanism that day. Your post was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
            I do stand by my arguments, though,( even if I should have posted them as a reply to a comment other than yours.) I think we too often judge the American founders by modern standards instead of by the standards of their times. And I don’t think that position “takes my post to the edge of a cliff.” as you put it. Unless, of course, there exists some sort of unforgivable-failure-to-demonize-Wasps cliff.

          • Erudite Mavin

            I actually see our wonderful founders in the time and place they lived.
            I happen to be one of those who take on the all or nothing crowd aka PaulBots who blame America first and place the
            founders in todays times thus having no understanding
            of 17th and 18th century history.
            The founders knew their enemy would take weeks
            to cross the ocean in their Man of War ship and a cannon
            ball would take out a building or a group of men.
            Today the enemy can hit America in well under an hour with a missile, taking out a major city or in seconds by a terrorist on our streets.
            Too many in this country don’t get this and think we should make nice or blame America and that will take
            care of it
            Have ancestors who fought in the early wars of the 1600s in America to the French & Indian War to
            my over 13 5th great grandfathers who fought in the Revolutionary War starting with Bunker Hill to 3rd great grandfathers who fought in the Union Army in the Civil War, one shot through the right thigh in the Battle of Shiloh, to WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam and several this minute fighting against Radical Islam.

        • CowboyUp

          I recall Bradford also held judgment against fellow Puritans for Indians and paid restitution.

    • Rocky Mountain

      If so, everybody of that era – with mighty few exceptions – was an intolerant fanatic.

      • Jason P

        That’s right.

  • ata777

    The battleground for the nation’s soul is not Washington, D.C. It is the public school classrooms that have been co-opted by the left for two generations. Washington is nothing more than a reflection of that success.

    • herb benty

      Exactly! The kiddies enter school as freedom loving, caring, respectful, and years later out pops a “Samantha Power”. The teachers and professors doing their dirty work well.

  • Grouchy Old Man

    The most honest treatments of American History were all written around the turn of the 20th century. After that, we seemed to get shy about our heritage. Yes, some were unapologetic about our treatments of Indians, etc. but in being that , they did nothing to gloss over truth. Parkman, for example, had nothing to hide.
    For example, books from that era admit that George Washington was a poor tactician but the only man that could hold the army together; that the Indians were given smallpox infected blankets as germ warfare;that Custer messed up badly. They admit the real reason for the Trail of Tears and the political roots of the Spanish American war.
    Go to your used book seller and collect them-it is eye openingly delightful.

    • James Paul

      How could people who did not even know how diseases spread or what caused them use “germ warfare”… cummon for crying out loud…

  • cathy


    Texas High Schoolers Indoctrinated by Islamist Curriculum
    Wed, February 27, 2013

    Does This HS History Textbook Have a Pro-Islam Bias?
    JUL 29 2013

  • cathy

    Marxist and Islamic indoctrination in the public school system!! Sharia Law incorporated into the American legal system in the name of inclusion!! Where is the outrage from Republican senators and congressman? Why are Americans not taking to the streets en masse and peacefully but forcefully protesting the destruction of the Republic?

    Anti-Islamic Law Permanently Banned by Okla. Judge
    Friday, August 16, 2013

    • Rocky Mountain

      “Peacefully but forcefully”? Sounds a little contradictory to me. Continue to vote for the people you want and when they get into office remind them why they are there. That should be ‘forceful’ enough but it takes a lot of effort and time but too many commenters seem to think they live in Lexington or Concord in 1775. We were fighting then for representation. We have representation; let’s use representation instead of clamoring for an imaginary political world brought about by a backyard barbeque revolution.

    • seewithyourowneyes

      I think we need a new approach to our opposition to Sharia Law. We need to get more specific.
      Islamists and their bought-and-paid-for dhimmis always claim that Sharia is consistent with our Constitution and that all apparent disagreements are just “misunderstandings.” Let’s call their bluff. Let’s include “bride prices” and forced marriages under our “human trafficking” laws. Let’s go after anyone who incites or abets forced marriage or child marriage with the same force we’d use to prosecute the KKK. After all, both the KKK and the abettors of forced marriage are conspiracies to intimidate oppressed groups and to deprive them of their civil rights. Let’s allow for no prosecutorial discretion in such matters – mandatory prosecution for human trafficking. And the “honor killing” of girls who try to get out of forced marriage should be treated as a hate crime as well as a murder.
      Let’s go after both rape and wife-beating as civil rights offenses. We should have done that long ago anyway.
      If we attack Sharia in this piecemeal fashion, we put the Islamists in a corner. They can’t claim both that Sharia doesn’t promote wife-beating, and that tougher laws against wife-beating discriminate against them.

  • Erudite Mavin

    This is a good reminder as to what the Public Schools and Universities are about.

    The Far Left Text Books along with the teachers to match have been

    the majority in Public Schools for decades.

    When some so called conservatives state they won’t vote for an 90% conservative GOP candidate, it has to be a Pure but they have their kids in Public Schools being

    instructed by the radical left and their text books. They again show what

    Hypocrites they are.

    Some Conservatives and Libertarians would rather use their money on a second car, big screen TV, etc. rather than put their kids in a parochial school.

    When will some take on the public school starting byu pulling your kids out and what some don’t get. You kid is money for the Liberal Public Schools.

    Here is an example from just one city using 2011 data

    On average, a student with perfect attendance is worth about $5,230 to a school district in San Diego County. Every day missed reduces that amount by about $29
    We are talking mega millions of dollars a year for a school dist.
    Gov. Money, aka tax money.
    Those who continue Liberal rule by sitting home or voting third party
    and continue having your kids in the Left wing Public Schools again are

    • James Paul

      I do not even reside in America, but am American, and my kid does not go to public schools here. This is how bad the taint of indoctrination in American public schools has left in the mouths of many people.

  • Jillian Becker

    I too hate the anti-America politically correct Zinn type history books prescribed for public schools. But do you really want the truth about Calvin to be in them? I hope you do, but tell me so, please, after you’ve read it here:

    • Rocky Mountain

      Maybe we shouldn’t have the truth about anybody.

    • bluffcreek1967

      The French Protestant reformer, John Calvin, was far from perfect. I consider myself a ‘five-point Calvinist’ or reformed in my soteriology, but even I would not agree with everything Calvin practiced nor uttered. His treatment of the heretic Servetus was admittedly wrong.

      However, the article you referenced is extremely biased and one-sided. I don’t have the time to go into it now, but you might want to read a little wider on the person of Calvin before accepting hook-line-and-sinker what the article espouses.

  • Underdog

    Why is it that so many Americans expect their children to become something other than good little socialists after going through the SOCIALIZED school system?

  • cathy
  • tagalog

    This comment confuses the Pilgrims with the Puritans.

    Puritans were Congregationalists who agreed that the Church of England was a legitimate Christian church.

    Pilgrims were all Separatists, also Congregationalists, who protested that the Anglican Church was NOT legitimate. They and the Puritans obviously had a doctrinal dispute. For that belief, they were persecuted under James I. They left England for Holland, then emigrated to Plimouth Plantation, later the town of Plymouth.

    Puritans arrived in the area near Boston – north of Plimouth Plantation – about ten or twenty years later. Puritans, having the support of the British crown (because they were OK with the Anglican Church) had the colonial charter, and became more numerous and politically powerful.

    Plymouth was a Pilgrim town, settled by them and populated by them. Pilgrims and Puritans did not mix well, although they did business with one another.