An American history resource
Gardiner
watwinc
news:37E1A8CA...@pitnet.net...
Well, you're certainly in the right marketplace, but your claim on that web
page that "... it can be shown that Christianity was largely the basis of
the principles and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded. ... This is not a
matter of religious bias or the authors' desire to proselytize the reader.
It is a matter of historical accuracy. of America" are grossly misleading
and overstated. In the threads on alt.history.colonial and elsewhere you've
consistently given a biased and highly adversarial presentation. While
hardly alien to the spirit of history - which has ever been a handmaid (or
bootlicker) to politics - it would at least be honest to say that this is a
very committed Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
critical attitude.
John Decker
watwinc wrote:
> <snip>.....it would at least be honest to say that this is a very committed
> Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
> coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
> critical attitude.
I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists- but
-now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal humanist'
view."
or how about " ......they were all deists and.......blah blah blah.........but
you must consider when listening to me I am a biased historical revisionist"
yeah, I hear that all of the time.
Gon
--
Life ------ is like music; it must be composed by ear,
feeling, and instinct, not by rule.
--Samuel Butler
watwinc
news:37E23F3D...@oio.net...
>
>
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > <snip>.....it would at least be honest to say that this is a very
committed
> > Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
> > coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
> > critical attitude.
>
> I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists-
but
> -now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal
humanist'
> view."
>
> or how about " ......they were all deists and.......blah blah
blah.........but
> you must consider when listening to me I am a biased historical
revisionist"
>
> yeah, I hear that all of the time.
>
> Gon
>
have to advertise that fact, but you aren't allowed to claim that you're
selling *fresh* fish.
I believe that in home schooling we have a responsibility to our children to
develop their critical thinking. (This is a major reason we keep them out of
the PS system, isn't it?)
I haven't read the Amos and Gardiner book (I'll be asking my local library
to get me a copy today), but the blurb on that web site and Gardiner's
postings on alt.history.colonial lead me to believe that the book is
thoroughly unsuitable for use in home schooling, unless you're using it to
study historical bias, or using other resources to highlight areas of
disagreement or inaccuracy.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
nation.
The book was written to "correct" that slight.
Problem is, they then did the exact same thing blamed the "establishment"
of doing and went the opposite extreme, finding Protestant Christianity in
everything, everywhere.
The problem with this book and others like it, if they are going to be used
for schooling is there has to be balance found somewhere.
The book presents a picture, that while there is truth to the picture
painted by this book, it is not the complete story.
If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
there is always at least two sides to all stories.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|
>:|watwinc wrote:
>:|
>:|> <snip>.....it would at least be honest to say that this is a very committed
>:|> Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
>:|> coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
>:|> critical attitude.
>:|
>:|I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists- but
>:|-now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal humanist'
>:|view."
>:|
>:|or how about " ......they were all deists and.......blah blah blah.........but
>:|you must consider when listening to me I am a biased historical revisionist"
>:|
>:|yeah, I hear that all of the time.
>:|
And the above means what, exactly in regard to what the previous poster had
written?
John Decker
The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
J
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>
> Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
> because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
> that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
> nation.
>
> The book was written to "correct" that slight.
>
> Problem is, they then did the exact same thing blamed the "establishment"
> of doing and went the opposite extreme, finding Protestant Christianity in
> everything, everywhere.
>
> The problem with this book and others like it, if they are going to be used
> for schooling is there has to be balance found somewhere.
>
> The book presents a picture, that while there is truth to the picture
> painted by this book, it is not the complete story.
>
> If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
> that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
> there is always at least two sides to all stories.
>
> **********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>
> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
> and
> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>
> Page is a member of the following web rings:
>
> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>
> Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>
> Legal Research Ring
> **********************************************
--
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I of course,,,,,,,agree that all sides of an issue should be observed.
>:|
>:|The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
>:|contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
>:|^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
>:|for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
>:|supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
>:|expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
What school text books teach that a great number of the founders were
Deist?
Great number, or does it mention some were?
I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books. yet
some were Deist, a fair number were not orthodox Christians. I went to
school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who were not of
their faith here.
I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
contributed anything to this nation, or blacks. When indians massacred
whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
Having been involved with Gardiner since early March in "discussions" I see
a lot of what his book is about as being a return those inaccurate books I
studied history from when I was in school, grades 1-12 .
I have also found many of his positions to be incorrect, as I said before,
to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>:|
>:|I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
>:|listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
>:|with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
>:|Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
It's called free speech and if you are referring to the news groups here on
the internet, it is a free market of ideas and most things most people post
die out with that post, never to be seen or read again.
Those that catch some attention are "discussed" back and forth for awhile
and most lurkers will make up their own mind about who they think are right
or not, or maybe they will actually go and do some independent research and
study on their own
No harm done, usually more than one side is being offered. That is not
quite the same as text books of any kind that are grossly slanted and end
up in public or private schools or in home schooling situations.
>:|
>:|So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
>:|
Kewl.
Scott Bryce
> >:|I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists- but
> >:|-now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal humanist'
> >:|view."
> >:|yeah, I hear that all of the time.
>
> And the above means what, exactly in regard to what the previous poster had
> written?
It means that your biases aren't any better than my biases.
--Scott
watwinc
news:37E28E10...@coastlink.com...
Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for home
schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
Some member of the Douglas Family
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>
> Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
> because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
> that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
> nation.[...]
> If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
> that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
> there is always at least two sides to all stories.
I've found an excellent website with tons of primary source documents. I use it regularly since
*all* histories are subject to bias. The URL is;
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
The USA has been a country of contrasting ideas from its roots and I find it a fabulous thing to
study in-depth. Like all complex issues it is very difficult to reduce it to something simple
enough to present to young children. That's why we focus on accurate facts, and then read exciting
stories while we tell the children that *everyone* sees what has happened in life from different
perspectives and in order to get the best picture you have to read and look at a variety of
sources. As followers of Jesus Christ my children are also encouraged to view the world in as
Christlike a perspective as possible. That of course, will change as they grow into a deeper
understanding of who Christ is and how he lived, meanwhile we all have to do the best we can with
our limited and fallible minds.
MaG
John Decker
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> John Decker <jde...@oio.net> wrote:
>
> >:|I of course,,,,,,,agree that all sides of an issue should be observed.
> >:|
> >:|The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
> >:|contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
> >:|^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
> >:|for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
> >:|supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
> >:|expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
>
> What school text books teach that a great number of the founders were
> Deist?
> Great number, or does it mention some were?
>
> I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books. yet
> some were Deist, a fair number were not orthodox Christians. I went to
> school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
> here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
> but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who were not of
> their faith here.
>
> I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
> contributed anything to this nation, or blacks. When indians massacred
> whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
> Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
So you are older than me. (28 this sunday)
>
>
> Having been involved with Gardiner since early March in "discussions" I see
> a lot of what his book is about as being a return those inaccurate books I
> studied history from when I was in school, grades 1-12 .
>
> I have also found many of his positions to be incorrect, as I said before,
> to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
> Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
> is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>
> >:|
> >:|I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
> >:|listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
> >:|with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
> >:|Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
>
> It's called free speech and if you are referring to the news groups here on
> the internet, it is a free market of ideas and most things most people post
> die out with that post, never to be seen or read again.
Don't tell me freedom is greater than responsibility. I mean, I know that mercy triumphs over judgment ,
but freedom over responsibility? No religion that I know teaches that, except for good old fashioned
selfish-ism. Occasionally a follower of which am I.
>
>
> Those that catch some attention are "discussed" back and forth for awhile
> and most lurkers will make up their own mind about who they think are right
> or not, or maybe they will actually go and do some independent research and
> study on their own
What am I to say ? thank you for explaining that ( ? ) I'm sure you don't feel like I have infringed on
your rights by attempting to shed a different light.
>
>
> No harm done, usually more than one side is being offered. That is not
> quite the same as text books of any kind that are grossly slanted and end
> up in public or private schools or in home schooling situations.
>
> >:|
> >:|So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
> >:|
>
> Kewl.
oh, I may read the book myself, I'm glad you mentioned it.
>
>
> **********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>
> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
> and
> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>
> Page is a member of the following web rings:
>
> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>
> Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>
> Legal Research Ring
> **********************************************
--
Angel Sparrow
If I recall my history rightly, as it pertains to the founding fathers,
the big ones tended toward deism.
It was the fashionable religion of the 18th century.
Let's see:
Ben Franklin: notorious member of the Hellfire Club.
Thomas Jefferson: Deist. Once wrote a New Testament
without miracles, divine intervention or reference to the supernatural.
John Adams and John Q Adams: Unitarians. (the taint
has affected my husband's family ever since)
Fundamentalism is very much a 19th century
event.
Angel
Scott Bryce
> Ben Franklin: notorious member of the Hellfire Club.
> Thomas Jefferson: Deist. Once wrote a New Testament
> without miracles, divine intervention or reference to the supernatural.
> John Adams and John Q Adams: Unitarians. (the taint
> has affected my husband's family ever since)
Is that why the British called it the Presbyterian uprising?
--Scott
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for home
> schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
> significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
The point, it seemed to me, was that the *direction* of
bias ought to be acknowledged.
The response seemed to be, that other folks don't tend
to acknowledge their biases, either.
This seems a safe, even conservative (in the actual and not
political meaning of the word) stand to take.
It really is not possible to separate our world view from
what we do and what we teach and how we teach it. This is
as true for people who do not *claim* to make that attempt as
it is for people who do claim to not be biased.
(Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
ideologies.)
Anyway, the best advice I've heard from homeschoolers is to
get one's History from a variety of sources (rather than
just one State approved text) and to compare the differences.
Original sources are also highly recommended.
Do you have any favorite sources for American History
you might like to recommend?
--Julie
watwinc
news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>
>
> watwinc wrote:
> >
> > Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for
home
> > schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
> > significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
>
> The point, it seemed to me, was that the *direction* of
> bias ought to be acknowledged.
Not at all - the point was (and remains) simply that a book which is
thoroughly biased is not a good book for home schooling. At the least,
people need to be aware of the bias, which was the purpose of my original
response to Gardiner's advertisement.
> The response seemed to be, that other folks don't tend
> to acknowledge their biases, either.
>
> This seems a safe, even conservative (in the actual and not
> political meaning of the word) stand to take.
>
> It really is not possible to separate our world view from
> what we do and what we teach and how we teach it. This is
> as true for people who do not *claim* to make that attempt as
> it is for people who do claim to not be biased.
>
> (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> ideologies.)
>
> Anyway, the best advice I've heard from homeschoolers is to
> get one's History from a variety of sources (rather than
> just one State approved text) and to compare the differences.
> Original sources are also highly recommended.
>
> Do you have any favorite sources for American History
> you might like to recommend?
<grin> That's a bit broad! If you want to narrow the topic or period, I'd be
happy to talk about what I know (and what we've used).
> --Julie
>
>
watwinc
news:uUvRP3aA$GA.284@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
> >
> >
> > watwinc wrote:
> > >
> > > Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for
> home
> > > schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
> > > significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
> >
> > The point, it seemed to me, was that the *direction* of
> > bias ought to be acknowledged.
>
> Not at all - the point was (and remains) simply that a book which is
> thoroughly biased is not a good book for home schooling. At the least,
> people need to be aware of the bias, which was the purpose of my original
> response to Gardiner's advertisement.
On re-reading, I realise that "the point" could have been my original point
or John Decker's point. I took it as the latter, but I could be losing on
points here. (Never did ballet.)
> > The response seemed to be, that other folks don't tend
> > to acknowledge their biases, either.
> >
> > This seems a safe, even conservative (in the actual and not
> > political meaning of the word) stand to take.
> >
> > It really is not possible to separate our world view from
> > what we do and what we teach and how we teach it. This is
> > as true for people who do not *claim* to make that attempt as
> > it is for people who do claim to not be biased.
All this is self-evident. So I try to be aware of my own biases, acknowledge
them and give our children alternatives (if they haven't already thought of
them).
> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> > ideologies.)
Separation of school and state is a moral necessity? I confess I that went
right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
jal...@pilot.infi.net
Wonder who that might be, :o)
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|>
>:|> Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
>:|> because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
>:|> that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
>:|> nation.[...]
>:|
>:|> If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
>:|> that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
>:|> there is always at least two sides to all stories.
>:|
>:|I've found an excellent website with tons of primary source documents. I use it regularly since
>:|*all* histories are subject to bias. The URL is;
>:|
>:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|
Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant (bias)
=========================================================================
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|You can find a lot out about what the founding fathers said about religion
>:|> >:|> >:|first hand at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|a good resource is http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
A massive collection of the literature and documents which were most
relevant to the colonists' lives in America. If it isn't here, it probably
is not available online anywhere. Christianity is a pervasive theme
throughout these primary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Does that mean it if didn't have a pervasive theme it didn't get included)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardiner wrote:
A massive collection of Primary Sources for Early American
History: http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html demonstrating
the Christian Character of the birth of America. What do you think?
Other person wrote:
I think you've been given feed back, some of us like the website.I'm
beginning to think your purpose for continually asking for feedback is
promoted by the fact that you are the author of the textbook that uses the
information at the site and you are trying to get more people to go to the
site and see your ad. If that's the reason at least be honest about it. If
it's not I apologize for the tone of this post.
Gardiner wrote:
To my knowledge, yours is the first feedback that has been posted
here. Of course I would like folks to consider my book; but more than
that I think that the site really helps people see exactly how
Christianity permeated the birth of the nation. I have spent a lot of
time assembling the links on the site and I really hope it helps the
cause of Christian education online.
As I was working on the book, I ended up collecting a long list of
bookmarks for primary sources. Instead of dumping them, I thought it
might be helpful to share them with the world. I felt like this might
also provide a forum to get some exposure for the book. I wish that
you didn't see this as dishonest. I really do work hard maintaining
the Library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY, America's Inspired Birth
Summary
Christianity permeated the socio-cultural context of America at the time of
the founding. Regardless of the fact that a few of the founders were not
explicitly orthodox Christians, Christianity was deeply embedded into their
collective consciousness: the natural result of the ubiquity and
penetration of Christianity into every nook and cranny of the American
colonial experience. In the colonies the peoples' religion saturated every
aspect of their life. Their Christian theological suppositions impacted
their educational pursuits, their domestic standards, their nomenclature,
their love for science, and their basic concepts of law and rights that
gave rise to the American system. As a result, it can be shown that
Christianity was largely the basis of the principles and ideals upon which
the U.S. was founded. These are principles which most Americans, Christian
or otherwise, continue to hold dear.
This is not a matter of religious bias or the authors' desire to
proselytize the reader. It is a matter of historical accuracy. Therefore, a
commitment to historical accuracy demands that American history
teachers make this point more clearly. The aim of this textbook is
therefore to provide students an honest analysis of the political,
socio-cultural, legal, theological and philosophical context--the
incubator--of the United States of America. This book demonstrates, in
scholarly fashion, that the Christian roots of our nation are historically
evident, logically compelling, and beyond scholarly
dispute.
How does this book differ from the other textbooks?
Although most American history textbooks do discuss the role of
Christianity as a peripheral influence in the American colonies, they
ultimately fail to present the extent to which it permeated the founding.
Mainstream textbooks are not silent with regard to the influence of
Christianity in the colonies. Most textbooks acknowledge that the Pilgrims
and Puritans were devout Protestants. Most acknowledge that there was a
religious revival in the 1740's across the colonies which has been dubbed
"the Great Awakening." Many acknowledge some role of Christianity within
education. If one is simply looking for a resource which enumerates ways in
which Christianity had a peripheral place in American History, a
garden-variety textbook will probably provide that data. Although many of
these textbooks concede that the colonists and founders were members of
Protestant churches, they ultimately allege that the political ideas the
founders embraced had a non-Christian genesis. This text will challenge
those notions and revisit the thesis that the predominant influence upon
the founding of this nation was Christianity.
Therefore, this textbook is not just a peripheral discussion of the role of
Christianity in America, over and above what some consider the more
important and more relevant facts about our history. This book will
evidence the fact that Christianity was the most important and most
relevant factor involved in the conception of the nation.
The primary aim of this text is to present the political, social,
theological and cultural context of the founding of the United States,
especially since the relevant historical information has become clouded.
Of course it would be wrong and extreme to suggest that the influences upon
the founding of the United States were exclusively Christian. It is equally
wrong and extreme to suggest that Christianity was peripheral to the
founding. Since the prevailing scholarship errs toward the latter, this
book is an important contribution to a balanced education in American
History.
=======================================================================
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> John Decker <jde...@oio.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|I of course,,,,,,,agree that all sides of an issue should be observed.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
>:|> >:|contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
>:|> >:|^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
>:|> >:|for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
>:|> >:|supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
>:|> >:|expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
>:|>
>:|> What school text books teach that a great number of the founders were
>:|> Deist?
>:|> Great number, or does it mention some were?
>:|>
>:|> I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books. yet
>:|> some were Deist, a fair number were not orthodox Christians. I went to
>:|> school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
>:|> here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
>:|> but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who were not of
>:|> their faith here.
>:|>
>:|> I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
>:|> contributed anything to this nation, or blacks. When indians massacred
>:|> whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
>:|> Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
>:|
>:|So you are older than me. (28 this sunday)
>:|
Yes, quite a bit.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Having been involved with Gardiner since early March in "discussions" I see
>:|> a lot of what his book is about as being a return those inaccurate books I
>:|> studied history from when I was in school, grades 1-12 .
>:|>
>:|> I have also found many of his positions to be incorrect, as I said before,
>:|> to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
>:|> Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
>:|> is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
>:|> >:|listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
>:|> >:|with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
>:|> >:|Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
>:|>
>:|> It's called free speech and if you are referring to the news groups here on
>:|> the internet, it is a free market of ideas and most things most people post
>:|> die out with that post, never to be seen or read again.
>:|
>:|Don't tell me freedom is greater than responsibility. I mean, I know that mercy triumphs over judgment ,
>:|but freedom over responsibility? No religion that I know teaches that, except for good old fashioned
>:|selfish-ism. Occasionally a follower of which am I.
Responsibility.
Tell me about responsibility in the following:
(I post this here because (1) Gardiner has been known to come to Barton's
aid, though i suspect he knows next to nothing about him, (2) People
frequently post bogus information on the net,. and one can point out they
are bogus, even provide the evidence they are bogus, and they continue to
post the bogus information Where is responsibility in that?
This particular piece I am posting to you was posted to
relw...@my-deja.com who posted
>:|THE MYTH OF
>:|
>:|"SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"
>:|
>:|UNMASKED
recently in this news group, and numerous other ones.
His replies were:
(1)
>:|Dear Friend:
>:|
>:|No, the evidence speaks for itself. That's why all one needs to do to
>:|combat your view of "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" is to quote the
>:|Founding Fathers themselves!
==========================================================================
(2)
>:|Dear Friend:
>:|
>:| The quotes are quite real. Look them up for yourself. No, do not take
>:|my word. I encourage you to research these matters directly yourself.
>:|
>:| Mr. Barton is certainly an excellent source re America's Biblical
>:|Heritage. However, there is much more info. on this. Two excellent books I
>:|suggest are:
>:|1. The Rewriting of American History by Catherine Millard
>:|2. America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William Federer
>:|
>:| I extend to you an invitation to visit my website where much of this
>:|info is available: www.c-.org/newmembers/rbaral/homepage/default.html
>:| As I said, you may then read for yourself.
==========================================================================
enough said)
Now, where lies the responsibility in the following?
***********************************************************************************
SEE:
Critique of David Barton's "America's Godly Heritage"
http://www.erols.com/bjcpa/pubs/barton.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq5.htm
Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution
"connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government
with the principles of Christianity?"
Research by Jim Allison.
In the first edition of his videotape, America's Godly Heritage, David
Barton quotes John Quincy Adams as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution is this; it connected in
one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.
While the quote doesn't appear in any of Barton's later works, it does turn
up in another popular Christian book, William J. Federer's, America's God
and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations, p. 18. Federer provides a date for
the quotation (July 4, 1821), and gives the source as follows:
John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860
(reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1860;1970), p. XXIX.
We recently located this source and now suspect that John Quincy Adams
never uttered these words. Here's what we found:
Pages X through XXXVIII of the Thornton book are a historical introduction
to the subject of religion in the New England States, with a special focus
on the state of Massachusetts. Throughout this introduction, Thornton
quotes various early Americans on the subject of religion. At least some of
the quotations are footnoted, and all of them appear to be enclosed in
quotation marks. Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for
emphasis.
The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of
these words are placed in quotation marks. Rather, the sentence reads as if
Thornton is making his own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams
believed. Thornton's sentence reads as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams,
was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil
government with the principle of Christianity (italics in the
original).
No footnote for these words is given. Nor are the words attached to a date.
Hence, if these words are a quotation from Adams, it is impossible to trace
them back from Thornton's book to an original source. Elsewhere in the
book Adams' father (John Adams) is quoted properly, i.e., with footnotes
and quotation marks.
It appears, in other words, that somewhere down the line Thornton's
conclusions about John Quincy Adams were passed off as Adam's own remarks.
In Federer's case, his reproduction of the quotation doesn't edit out the
words "said John Quincy Adams" and replace them with ellipses; either he
knowingly misreports Thornton's words, or he didn't check his sources for
accuracy. It is, of course, possible, that the printer made a mistake and
forgot the quotation marks but, until somebody can locate the original
source of the quote, there is no ground whatsoever to treat these words and
Adams' own. The quote should be regarded as bogus.
Please note: even if Adams did say these words it wouldn't bolster the
accomodationist's case; as we suggest elsewhere, Adams would simply be
wrong to argue that the federal Constitution embodies the principles of
Christianity. It doesn't, and Adams' saying so doesn't prove a thing.
Rather, the real importance of this quote is as a demonstration of just how
far some popular Christian authors will go to prove their case. Nothing in
the Thornton book justifies taking the "indissoluble bond" quote as John
Quincy Adams' own words, but because it says something the right wants to
hear, the words are pressed into service anyway. This isn't good
scholarship, and the consumers of Barton and Federer's work should be aware
of just how poor their research is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm
Misquoting by the Religious Right:
Now let's turn to a list of quotations that frequently appear in religious
right literature, but are now admitted by religious right leaders to be
either doubtful or false. The source of this list is none other than David
Barton, an important accomodationist author we criticize extensively in our
responses to the quotations above, and elsewhere in this website. Briefly,
Barton has released a press statement stating that nine of the quotations
appearing in his book The Myth of Separation (including the first two
above) are of doubtful authenticity (one of these has since been
authenticated; see below). Additionally, he lists three others that are
popularly cited by other conservative authors, but are probably not true. A
good article summarizing Barton's list can be found in the July/August 1996
edition of Church and State, A separationist publication.
Barton lists the following quotations as unconfirmed (i.e., no one has been
able to trace them to an original source):
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! --Patrick Henry
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible. --George Washington
Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of
primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. --Benjamin
Franklin
The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and
administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its
authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority
of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which
society is doomed to suffer. --Noah Webster
There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and
secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are
the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the
bayonet. --Noah Webster
The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in
morality and religion. --Abraham Lincoln
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the
philosophy of government in the next. --Abraham Lincoln
I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of
the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. --Thomas Jefferson
America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be
good, she will cease to be great.--Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in
America (Barton notes that this quote is "definitely not in the book," but
that it might perhaps occur in "other more obscure writings").
Additionally, Barton lists the following quote as inaccurate:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it
should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilizations
and our institutions are emphatically Christian. --The Supreme Court in
Holy Trinity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by
his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
Research by Jim Allison
On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the following
claim:
Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the
first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used
the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. Notice
why Jefferson felt the Bible to be essential in any successful plan of
education:
I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of
the sacred volume will make us better citizens.
Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school
board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public Schools of Washington," in
the Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127.
Barton's quotation from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last
Words of Saints and Sinners, 1969.
Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president
of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading
instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In
fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail
correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for
reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of
these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than
Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and
that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for
retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as
President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D.
C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city.
Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by
Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that
it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of
the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in
which:
...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar,
arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for
the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive
such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time
to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography
and in the Latin language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious
education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might
add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public
education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency
(check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil
Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is
nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to
the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in
the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an
answer to that question.
In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum
developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster, who's system of
education was becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Wilson
describes Landcaster as an "enthusiastic but somewhat visionary
schoolmaster, who adopted an inexpensive method of educating, especially
the masses of the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading,
writing, arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of
trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related
the progress his students had made in reading and spelling:
55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all
able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning
to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are
learning words of four and five letters. Of 509 out of the whole number
admitted that did not know a single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and
spell words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts' Hymns
and spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian
hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum
adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the
school board for retirement in Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied
claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was
being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want
his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own
source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his
use of evidence. Either alternative should cause the reader to question the
soundness of Barton's scholarship.
So what about Barton's quote from Herbert Lockyear's The Last Words of
Saints and Sinners? We tracked down the book and discovered that it had no
footnotes that direct the reader back to either Jefferson's own writings,
or to secondary accounts of Jefferson's life; the quote, in other words, is
untraceable. Moreover, we've never seen this quote referenced in any
scholarly work on Jefferson's attitude toward religion, or in any account
of Jefferson's death (the context of Lockyear's book). If Jefferson uttered
these words, it has apparently escaped the notice of most historians.
We have simply never encountered a legitimate scholar that reports an
unfootnoted quotation from a secondary source writing some 140 years after
the fact as the truth, especially when that quotation seems not to be known
to other scholars. If Barton wants us to accept this quote as authentic, he
should be able to indicate to where it can be found in Jefferson's works,
or else point us to a secondary source that provides the relevant
documentation. Barton does neither. It's hard to resist the conclusion that
this quote was fabricated by Lockyear, and that Barton reports it knowing
full well that there are questions as to its authenticity. [Newsflash:
Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated!
Finally, we draw your attention to a last, nagging inaccuracy in Barton's
passage. While it's true that Jefferson was elected president of the
Washington public school board in 1805, Wilson (Barton's source) goes on to
note that Jefferson was "prevented from ever discharging its duties by
others of paramount concern." Once again, Barton misreports his source; he
leaves out information that indicates that Jefferson was not as involved in
the work of the school board as the title "president" suggests. There is no
good reason for Barton to omit this information unless, of course, he wants
to mislead his readers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
In addiiton, to the above Barton is famous for misrepresenting the facts of
court cases, court decisions, meaning and impact of such court cases, etc.
Respected scholars, regardless of their position on this matter, cite the
works of other scholars and primary sources, etc in their footnotes and end
notes.
Perhaps, the biggest condemnation of Barton and his work is, rarely, if
ever do respected scholars cite any of his publications as any kind of
source.
Even those scholars who basically agree with his position, do not cite any
of his publications. They don't want to connect their names to his, because
of his reputation for shoddy research, inaccuracies, misrepresentations,
etc.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Those that catch some attention are "discussed" back and forth for awhile
>:|> and most lurkers will make up their own mind about who they think are right
>:|> or not, or maybe they will actually go and do some independent research and
>:|> study on their own
>:|
>:|What am I to say ? thank you for explaining that ( ? ) I'm sure you don't feel like I have infringed on
>:|your rights by attempting to shed a different light.
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> No harm done, usually more than one side is being offered. That is not
>:|> quite the same as text books of any kind that are grossly slanted and end
>:|> up in public or private schools or in home schooling situations.
>:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Kewl.
>:|
>:|oh, I may read the book myself, I'm glad you mentioned it.
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> **********************************************
Some member of the Douglas Family
> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
>
> >:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>
> Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
>
> Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant (bias)
If they are primary source documents, how can they be slanted in Gardiner's direction? Maybe by slanted you mean that he
only posts documents that support his view. Since I haven't read his textbook (and don't use textbooks) I have no comment
on it, but the primary source website contains links to *tons* of primary source documents at many different websites and
is an excellent resource.
MaG
watwinc
news:37E3DF75...@innova.net...
> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> > Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
> >
> > >:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
> >
> > Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
> >
> > Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant
(bias)
>
Gardiner's direction? Maybe by slanted you mean that he
> only posts documents that support his view. Since I haven't read his
textbook (and don't use textbooks) I have no comment
> on it, but the primary source website contains links to *tons* of primary
source documents at many different websites and
> is an excellent resource.
The word is "filtered", really. Not to lose sight of my point in all this,
there's nothing unusual in a biased history, and I'm certainly going to read
the Amos and Gardiner book (although not buy it), but it isn't suitable as a
core book in home schooling. In the case of Gardiner's links, they naturally
enough reflect his bias, where someone aiming at a more balanced
presentation would have more a balanced collection.
> MaG
>
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uUvRP3aA$GA.284@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> > > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> > > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> > > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> > > ideologies.)
>
> Separation of school and state is a moral necessity? I confess I that went
> right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
> homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
> public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
> public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
I don't think it's valid to say that because it is *hard*
to comply with a moral dictate that we ought not to try.
It is as offensive to have government teaching ideologies
as it is to have government teaching overt religion. Consider
also the shocking conflict of interests involved in having
public schools teach Civics!
The practicalities of Separation should be viewed as
a challenge. The best way to work it all out isn't
going to be found without effort, at first glance, the
first time a person is presented with the idea.
--Julie
Wayne
>> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
>> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
>> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
>> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
>> > ideologies.)
> watwinc wrote:
>Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
Yup.
As surely as separation of church and state is.
But you then went on to talk about affordability (sp?) ------
>I confess I that went
>right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
>homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
>public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
>public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
The simple answer to the financing question is to simply look around
and see what education *actually * costs and what people can
*actually* afford.
There are materially rich people who *can't* afford private schools or
homeschooling yet many poor families can sacrifice to provide for
their children. Homeschoolers, private, and religious schools have
shown that government education is spending at least twice the amount
they have to be.
We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
grossly unfair and wastful it is.
http://www.sepschool.org/Questions/financing.html
Wayne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wayne Schissler
EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I don't want my children fed or clothed by the
state, but even worse would be for them to be
educated by the state." - Max Victor Belz
http://www.sepschool.org
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|>
>:|> Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
>:|>
>:|> Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant (bias)
>:|
>:|If they are primary source documents, how can they be slanted in Gardiner's direction?
Maybe you should ask him. After all, he is the one who said:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
A massive collection of the literature and documents which were most
relevant to the colonists' lives in America. If it isn't here, it probably
is not available online anywhere. Christianity is a pervasive theme
throughout these primary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Does that mean it if didn't have a pervasive theme it didn't get included)
========================================================================
>:|Maybe by slanted you mean that he only posts documents that support his view. Since I haven't read his textbook (and don't use textbooks) I have no comment on it, but the primary source website contains links to *tons* of primary source documents at many different websites and is an excellent resource.
I took his words.
I do know that there are "Tons" of materials available for this time period
that would not have a Religious or a Christian pervasive theme, yet were
and are important historical documents.
I have no problem with his site and it being a reference site. I have
recommended it to others a time or two and even used it myself, but
couldn't find what I was looking for on it.
The problem I have with it is the Christian pervasive theme and what that
couild mean for documents that don't have such a theme.
The point still remains, he selected that phrase to describe the contents.
Kanga C.
stuff myself and I don't know anything about Gardner. I do try, appearances to
the contrary, to keep my mouth shut when I don't know *anythign* about the
thread.
But then Jalison said something about which I do know something:
>I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books.
Clearly a long time ago.
>I went to
>school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
>here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
>but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who
>were not of
>their faith here.
A *very* long time ago. I don't know that there are any public school texts
out there that don't mention the persecuting of others by Pilgrims and
Puritans. I know of at least one that school that taught their students the
Pilgrims had Thanksgiving to give thanks to the Indians- *no* mention of their
religious beliefs and motivations.
You really ought to pick up a few public school textbooks.
>
>I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
>contributed anything to this nation, or blacks.
Obviously not a good thing, but the state of affairs is hardly better today.
The Gablers of Texas reviewed a history textbook which devoted more time to
Marilyn Monroe than George Washington, and I don't think it mentioned Patrick
Henry at all.
>When indians massacred
>whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
>Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
Sounds like bad westerns to me, not like education today. Today we've simply
swung the pendulum as far to the opposite side as possible, still missing an
even sided coverage.
>to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
>Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
>is no better then seeing it nowhere.
I agree, but since *todays* public school textbooks do teach that it is
nowhere, Gardner *may* (don't know, haven't seen his stuff) provide a balance.
One difference I do see. Gardner's stuff is not sponsored by the government
nor is it paid for by tax dollars, not is it forcefed to little children who
must regurgitate it on tests in order to get a decent grade.
Blessings,
Kanga
If one child takes up all your time, then seven can't take anymore. Adapted
from Elizabeth Eliot's mother
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I was going to avoid this thread, because I have some problems with Barton's
>:|stuff myself and I don't know anything about Gardner. I do try, appearances to
>:|the contrary, to keep my mouth shut when I don't know *anythign* about the
>:|thread.
>:|
>:|But then Jalison said something about which I do know something:
>:|
>:|>I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books.
>:|
>:|Clearly a long time ago.
A few days ago.
>:|
>:|>I went to
>:|>school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
>:|>here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
>:|>but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who
>:|
>:|>were not of
>:|>their faith here.
>:|
>:|A *very* long time ago.
Ahhh, well.
>:| I don't know that there are any public school texts
>:|out there that don't mention the persecuting of others by Pilgrims and
>:|Puritans.
The ones we had sure didn't.
>:| I know of at least one that school that taught their students the
>:|Pilgrims had Thanksgiving to give thanks to the Indians- *no* mention of their
>:|religious beliefs and motivations.
Well, we had books that explained how religious they were, how they walked
for miles through all weather to attend church, etc. The idealized
Americans. not a flaw among them.
>:|
>:|You really ought to pick up a few public school textbooks.
I should? Gee, for some reason this has been a week I have attracted to me
a surplus of people telling what I ought to do, think, feel, say, etc.
Interesting week.
>:|
>:|>
>:|>I w