HOWARD ZINN’S LEGACY: Religious Fanaticism and Illegal Indoctrination of Your Children
by Ben ShapiroAs has been amply demonstrated by others, Howard Zinn was an anti-American secular humanist with heavily Marxist leanings. As I have already written, teaching the Zinn Education Project in public schools likely violates the California education code. It discriminates against particular races (namely, non-minorities) and all traditional religion (particularly with regard to its view of homosexuality). Zinn himself called for violating the education codes wherever possible:
“Don’t obey the rules… you have to play a kind of guerrilla warfare with the establishment in which you try not to be fired… You have to depart from the curriculum… outside the lines that are set for us by the school administration, or the politicians.”
Zinn, Josh Brolin, Chris Moore, Matt Damon
Of course, that doesn’t stop schoolteachers everywhere from teaching Zinn. According to the Oxnard Union High School District, Zinn’s on the California Department of Education Recommended Reading List.
He’s taught at the San Lorenzo Unified School District Re-Entry Intervention Program, which targets kids coming back to school after being expelled, students with ten or more days of suspension who are on track for expulsion, students coming back to school from Juvenile Hall – in short, the worst of the worst. This makes perfect sense – after all, what better way is there to teach borderline-criminal kids about good citizenship than pillorying America and giving them delusions of victimhood?
He’s taught in the Los Angeles Unified School District, at the Stern Math and Science School, where teacher Benjamin Weber’s curriculum is designed to focus on various minority groups struggling against the repressive evil of the American system.
He’s taught throughout the Seattle School District; in 2002, pressure from liberal interest groups forced the school district to adopt Zinn’s work in a stated attempt to include “cultural diversity” in the curriculum. Not coincidentally, the district came up with an action plan that included “more aggressive recruitment of minority teachers, better training of teachers about students’ varied cultural backgrounds, and racially proportionate admissions of students to special education and ‘highly capable’ programs.” He’s also taught in the Philadelphia School District, which recommends all of his books.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Our public schools can’t get kids to read, write or do math. But they can teach them to be victims, to hate religion, and to despise America’s history.
There’s no question that teaching Zinn violates school codes all over the country. The truth is that it should also violate current understanding of the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
First, the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The original meaning of this clear dictate has been obscured by a century of bad Supreme Court law, so there’s no reason to go into it. Instead, let’s focus on what the Supreme Court currently says the Establishment Clause means. Under Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), state and federal governments have no business participating in any activity unless (1) the action has a secular legislative purpose; or (2) it does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; or (3) it does not result in “excessive government entanglement” with religion. The easy argument here is that Zinn’s Education Project has a primary effect of inhibiting religion – as I’ve explained in the past, the Project targets religion in particularly pernicious ways.
But there’s another argument that deserves an airing here. That is the argument that Zinn’s form of propaganda truly amounts to religious proselytizing.
The Supreme Court has never actually settled what constitutes a “religion” under the Establishment Clause. The Court has, however, worked around the edges of what constitutes religion. Most relevant in this context is a footnote from Justice Hugo Black in the 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, in which he stated:
“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”
The courts have backed away from this pronouncement for Establishment Clause purposes, however; in Kalka v. Hawk (D.C. Circuit, 2000), for example, the court declared, “The Court’s statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a ‘religion’ under the First Amendment.” This is weak tea at best – no doubt the Court would declare reconstructionist Judaism just as much a religion as Orthodox Judaism, despite reconstructionism’s lack of an active God, any real ritual, and any formalized belief system.
The fact is that Howard Zinn’s philosophy has direct parentage in formalized secular humanism. His philosophy, reflected in his writing, was a self-described combination of “anarchism” and “democratic socialism.” Here’s how he described it:
“I believe that we need a society where the motive for the economic system is not corporate profit, but the motive is the welfare of people … Where there is a greater equalization of wealth, and a society which is peaceful, which devotes its resources to helping people in the country and elsewhere. And I believe in a world where war is no longer the recourse for the settling of grievances and problems. I believe in the wiping out of national boundaries … I think we need to move toward a global society.”
Further, he stated:
“I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization … [The world should be organized] of collectives of different sizes ….”
As you can see, this is basically a jumbled translation of Auguste Comte, who predated Marx. As Comte wrote, “Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all. Its constant social viewpoint cannot include any notion of rights, for such notion always rests on individuality.” Comte recognized the religious nature of his philosophy so deeply that he attempted to found a “religion of humanity,” including rituals and saints.
Zinn had no rituals (other than reflexive America-bashing) or saints (other than those who dislike America intensely). But that does not mean that his philosophy isn’t a religious one, any more than reconstructionist Judaism isn’t a religion. He believed in a utopian one-world vision where war ends and wealth is distributed equally, certainly an ideal that must be taken as a religious end-time fantasy. He sought to impose his utopia through the schools.
Not all religion is right wing or God-fearing. Some is left-wing and humanity worshipping. Zinn’s education was in the latter mold. Under the Establishment Clause, it should certainly be just as suspect and (and morally speaking, far more suspect than) teaching the Ten Commandments in class or allowing silent prayer.
Zinn’s advocates suggest that the First Amendment should allow Zinn into the classroom, no matter whether his material violates the Establishment Clause or educational codes, simply because it is a “point of view.” This is illogical. As Justice Rehnquist states in his dissent in Board of Education v. Pico (1982):
Education consists of the selective presentation and explanation of ideas. The effective acquisition of knowledge depends upon an orderly exposure to relevant information. Nowhere is this more true than in elementary and secondary schools, where, unlike the broad-ranging inquiry available to university students, the courses taught are those thought most relevant to the young students’ individual development. Of necessity, elementary and secondary educators must separate the relevant from the irrelevant, the appropriate from the inappropriate. Determining what information not to present to the students is often as important as identifying relevant material. This winnowing process necessarily leaves much information to be discovered by students at another time or in another place, and is fundamentally inconsistent with any constitutionally required eclecticism in public education.
Rehnquist is correct. School boards routinely throw right wing and religious perspectives out of the classroom using the Rehnquist justification; there is far more reason to throw Zinn out of the classroom using that same justification. Sadly, the fact is that it is far more probable nowadays that school districts will discard Bill Bennett on the curriculum than Howard Zinn. Public schools have become hotbeds of anti-American indoctrination over the last four decades. It is about time that they restored the will of the people when it comes to public education, and embrace the dictates of their own education codes – the same education codes that state, in relevant part:
Section 52720. In every public elementary school each day during the school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. In every public secondary school there shall be conducted daily appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy such requirement. Such patriotic exercises for secondary schools shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations which shall be adopted by the governing board of the district maintaining the secondary school.
52730. (a) Providing instruction that promotes understanding the concepts of “pledge,” “allegiance,” “republic,” and “indivisible,” and understanding the importance of the pledge as an expression of patriotism, love of country, and pride in the United States of America shall satisfy the requirement of Section 52720.
Americans are still patriotic, even if the public schools aren’t. And if the public schools refuse to abide by education codes or the dictates of grooming future citizens, we should stand on our legal rights to force them to do so.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
119 Comments
I sincerely hope Howard's enjoying his new job…
Having your ass used as Satan's umbrella stand must be quite rewarding, indeed!
Great article detailing the religious nature of the socialist/progressive, as well as the rapidly declining church of Gaia led by Pope Gore. Interesting point on Comte, and a very cogent linkage between Comte and Zinn, But lets remember the progressive/socialist ideas of Comte and Marx had a history before they arrived on the scene. Jewish Essenes and certain early Christian communities. These opponents of private property held that property holding was evil and irreligious and that God had created the world for the use of all humanity. The first of these ideas was particularly strong among Manichaean and Gnostic heretics, such as the Cathari, but these concepts were also found in some orthodox Christian groups ( the Franciscans).
In the 16th and 17th cent. such intellectual works as Sir Thomas More's Utopia proposed forms of communal property ownership in reaction to what the authors felt was the selfishness and depredation of growing economic individualism. In addition, some religious groups of the early modern period advocated forms of communism, just as had certain of the early Christians. The Anabaptists under Thomas Münzer were the real upholders of communism in the Peasants' War, and they were savagely punished for their beliefs. This same mixture of religious enthusiasm and economic reform was shown in 17th-century England by the tiny sect of the Diggers, who actually sought to put their theories into practice on common land.
Although the French Revolution ended without satisfying radical demands for economic egalitarianism, the voice of François Babeuf was strongly raised against economic inequality and the power of private property. For his class consciousness and his will to revolution he has been considered the first modern communist. Although he was guillotined, his movement (Babouvism) lived on, and the organization of his secret revolutionary society on the “cell” system was to be developed later as a means of militant revolution.
Already what is generally known as utopian communism had been well launched by the comte de Saint-Simon. In this era a number of advocates gathered followers, founded small cults, and attempted to launch communistic settlements, particularly in the United States. Most notable among such men were Robert Owen, Étienne Cabet, and Charles Fourier. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, although he did not adopt the principle of common ownership, exercised great influence by his attacks on the evils of private property.
In response to the French Revolution, a host of critics and idealistic revolutionists arose in Germany, but more important was the survival or revival of Babouvism in secret French and Italian revolutionary societies, intent on overthrowing the established governments and on setting up a new, propertyless society. It was among them that the terms communism and socialism were first used. They were used vaguely and more or less interchangeably, although there was a tendency to use the term socialist to denote those who merely stressed a strong state as the owner of all means of production, and the term communist for those who stressed the abolition of all private property (except immediate personal goods). Among the chief leaders of such revolutionary groups were the Frenchmen Louis Blanc and (far more radical) Louis Auguste Blanqui, both of whom played important roles in the February Revolution of 1848.
While there is a long history of progressive/communism/socialist thought, it is worth noting that in all its forms, from the Essenes to the Communist, these movements always fail because of natural condition of man.
.
No wonder our country is getting so screwed up. We've had smiling sociopaths acting as force multipliers in our institutions.
Marxism never sleeps….. so neither shall I
.
If Zinn is the prophet of the left, then it is no wonder that we have the most vile government right now in the history of our nation. And knowing that God is totally in control, this vile government is only one of many punishments our nation will receive due to this nation's rejection of Him.
And I'd bet the farm that Zinn is in hell for an eternity.
If Zinn is Hell, he must be smiling from ear to ear. Hell is a Marxist paradise. Everyone suffers equally for the pleasure of its leader, Satan.
Personally speaking, i think religion is a crutch. It's a scape goat of the weak. why did something go wrong? it's the devil's fault or god's. Religion is not about god or worship. The truth of religion is that it's most basic function was to explain how things in the world functioned and what made them function and namely under religion that answer was some higher being or many higher beings depending on your flavor of religion.
Personally I don't think religion in any form should be taught at public schools. Teaching religions (whether agnostism/christian(islam, same religion basically so I don't see why christians need so desperately to set each other apart)/paganistic) or imposing religious values on others is not right; since I'd not want someone imposing them on myself.
Religion in this era should at the core of it, a philosophy in my opinion. A philosophy on how you view and think life should be lived. I mean you can't really take everything at face value. I certainly don't believe in talking snakes that try to tempt you into eating an apple. It's all metaphor and ancedotes to reinforce whatever message the church wants to preach at the time. Why do you think the original lectures where in latin; where in some times and places latin was not understood by the common people, some workers in the field and not having the time to learn latin; but still they went each sabbath to keep this thing called a soul saved so it can go to heaven.
The greatest problem I think facing us, is that people are ignorant and would rather remain that way, some of them out of a falsely placed sense of traditionalism, even I am at times guilty of it and regret I am that way at times.
Howard Zinn …Nothing became his life like the leaving of it.
On the NEA web page it praises Saul Alinsky's book rule for radicals. A inspirational book for community organization. The review and recommended reading for educators I would think to teach
The organizer hit, hurts, and is dangerous
The organizer will fight conservative business or labor leaders
The radicals may resort to the sword
He hates not these people as persons but as symbols for which they represent
The reviewer is not sure if he agrees on the assertion if the ends justify the means for the radical would resort to unethical behavior if necessary
the NEA are in charge to teach K-12 and this is what they fill themselves with and pass along to the next gereration.
thanks alot "Kristine from NYC" now my morning will be wasted burning up my search engine ; }
Sorry. ;0)
It only took me a couple lines to realize that you are a bigot and religious fanatic. You people make me sick.
If you think that a god can be "rejected", you are sadly out of touch with reality
Sorry walter…but I believe that's your reflection that's causing you such intestinal distress…
I've appeared before our school board, written letters, researched Howard Zinn and his hideous beliefs, and still his tract "A People's History" is taught in our high school.
All these years I've been holding up my little candle in the darkness, trying to shed light on this evil man, and now there are lights everywhere just like mine, banishing the darkness and bringing the truth to light at last.
Thanks, Ben. Thank you, Big Hollywood. I am not alone, and there is hope at last.
Zinn has done more to harm our nation than any Nazi, Communist, or Jihadist ever could – he covered for them, apologized for them, even celebrated them, and his legacy is well established so that our children will reap his foul harvest. People have accused us on the right of dancing on Zinn's grave. Well I say, the line to take a pi$$ on his grave forms behind me.
I can not dispute your right to not believe in a higher power, but then I would have to ask how you can explain the following without logically concluding in a higher power.
1) Big Bang and creation of the Universe… How did it begin, and how come it is perfect, similar to a Clock or machinery. Is it just pure dumb luck that Mankind, animals, and the floura and fauna lives on a planet that supports our life, and within strict restrictions.
2) Why many people have the same death experience (based on those that died and were brought back to life), of feeling a white light, calming love, and seeing and communicating with loved ones.
3) the 12 grams that scientist cannot explain that disappears when a person dies, some say it is the soul.
4) Why mankind believes in an almost universal set of good and evil.
5) Why is mankind the only creature on Earth (and as far as we know the universe) that can comprehend its past, has emotions, feels the need to cover up their flesh, and as the ability to think our solutions.
6) If there is no god, what seperates mankind from the common roach, and if there is a difference why.
I am sure that you can answer these questions. But recall, alot of the Bible as been historically verivied, and is basically a history book of gods early relationship with mankind. Also, religion is a belief in a higher power, dogma is the philosophy behind religion.
We have much work to do in this country, and the passing of Zinn is only a start. His willing sycophants must not be allowed to promulgate his anti-American belief system, and as we begin to return this country to it’s founding the education system must be a priority, and relegate America hating leftist like Zinn/Alinsky, etc. to the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
A vain and narcissistic world is fertile ground for the mendacious sort.
There, there now, Wally… dry those tears.
Zinn is one of a long line of leftist, Jewish radical intellectuals who actively agitated against the only country that hasn't tried to exterminate them. In a country where Jews have prospered beyond their wildest expectations, these "intellectuals" did everything they could to disrupt and bring down the system. Alinsky, Chomsky, et all and on and on. If someone can explain it to me, other than some form of self loathing, I'd be appreciative.
I've lived as an atheist. I've lived as a Christian. You won't know it until you've accept Christ, but Christianity is much harder. A crutch? That's always been a curious expression. Anyone who's ever used a crutch knows it's something you want to get rid of as soon as possible.
You have opinions. But would you like proof? Would you like to really dig in with both hands, your heart, mind, and soul and find out if Jesus is real? Don't be afraid to answer yes. I'd be happy to offer terrific life changing books to read (starting with The Bible itself). Let me know.
I guess that means you won't be trolling here again. You will be missed. Sigh. Why do the good trolls die so young?
' “We must encourage students to access the antagonist class positions of texts in order to demonstrate how the oppositional voices contained in them identify evidence of class struggle,” Christopher Craig writes in the December 2009 issue of Radical Teacher, “a socialist, feminist and anti-racist journal on the theory and practice of teaching.” “Through this critical process, we can show how the values and interests of the dominant class are not universal but repressive, intended to keep the power relations between the ruling and working class one-sided.”
“For most of us, learning to read texts this way helps us to see through the ruling class ideology that exists in everything from literature to the nightly news.” Craig teaches at Emmanuel College, a Catholic institution of higher learning.'
These anti-American, anti-capitalist zealots are being allowed to teach our children, friends.
Look at them: those smiling, laughing, rich beautiful people. When I was a child, I thought Hollywood stars were something to aspire to. That was a long time ago. Now I'm a man and I wouldn't trust them to clean my cat's litter box.
And, if I had to do it over again, I wouldn't go to college. I wouldn't spend a single penny to fund the academic hells that cover the American landscape like poison mushrooms.
Former radical David Horowitz on Howard Zinn:
"Zinn’s wretched tract, A People’s History of the United States, is worthless as history, and it is a national tragedy that so many Americans have fallen under its spell. It is a political cartoon which even the socialist magazine Dissent described as an intellectual fraud, which it is. All Zinn’s writing was directed to one end: to indict his own country as an evil state and soften his countrymen up for the kill. Like his partner in crime, Noam Chomsky, Zinn was a wicked man and his life’s work was a pernicious influence on the young and ignorant, with destructive consequences for people everywhere."
Read it all here: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...
…these movements always fail because of natural condition of man. While I'm not familiar with many of the things you posted, I think I get your overall point(s). The inability of the Left to understand basic human nature and the desire to not only be free but be free to create and engage in industry of all types is astounding, to me, given how intellectually superior to the rest of us they all imagine themselves to be. Their unwillingness to recognize that freedom of speech and conscience and the guarantee of private property ownership are the keys to freedom is just proof to me that many human beings, in the absence of a moral sense off duty to our fellow human beings, willfully embrace tyrannical thought.
A little light goes a long way, keep shining Bonnie.
You got it right on the money!!!!
Individuality vs collectivism is the common theme. The sadest thing is that people who've flocked to the side of collectivism cannot see the hatred the authors and their mentors have for the individual. They hate people who oppose their view and wave the First Amendment flag to declare free speech then tell the individual that they don't have the right to oppose them.
You cannot open the mind of the collectivist anymore than you can shed the light on a non-believer of religion. The collectivist has to have a self-awakening, which will evangilize them to individual thought. It's no different than being a born-again, the individual becomes self-aware on his own and the more you try to teach, or preach the truth, the more wall they build.
Knowing that they will never betray their mentors' paths and the collectivist leardership in the country, how are we the individuals going to show them historical accuracy and our founder's vision?
[...] post: HOWARD ZINN’S LEGACY: Religious Fanaticism and Illegal Indoctrination of Your Children This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
it isn't so much a failure of the left 'to understand'- that's being kind…
They understand just fine. What they want is to CHANGE human behaviour. By force, if necessary.
For when you do not believe in a Higher Authority (as Sir Tomas More obviously did) and humanism- men as gods- is your 'religion'- then any actions can be justified.
Including genocide…
How can anarchists have principles? Are not principles anathema to anarchism?
Leon Trotsky in 1924 on what would follow Communism's triumph:
"Man will, at last…make it his goal to master his own emotions, to elevate his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent…to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman…Man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, subtler. His body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more melodious. The forms of life will acquire a dynamic theatricality. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, Goethe, Marx. And beyond this ridge, other peaks will emerge."
If you get to know any committed Marxists, you will know that is a religion. The true believers, like Zinn and his acolytes like Matt Damon et al are pushing for religion in the schools, their religion.
Now, now, don't worry about "Walter," there's always the possibility of another Bourne movie for him to make.
And if they dont, Trotsky and his ilk killed them.
)
TSS1 —
I'll give it a try – as a proud American, Jew and Conservative. To understand it, all you have to do is to talk to ANY liberals/lefties (the Jimmy Carters and Michael Moores of the world). All of these folks have benefitted from American affluence, and yet attack and betray America. The mindset is not all that different. I know Catholic leftists, Christian leftists (National Council of Churches denominations), etc. Same mindset pervades them all. A fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of freedom/responsibility, etc. An abiding and overarching favoritism to the underdog, no matter what (and the pervasive infantilization of those who are the underdog). America's affluent, so it must have gotten that way by exploiting people, etc. The notion of life/economies/creativity, etc. as a zero sum gain (Jews have a history of deprivation and persecution).
cont'd
It's the adolescent rebellion against the parent whose house you live in and food you're eating – the adolescent mindset rebels against the "rules" which created such affluence without acknowledging that they are necessary to acquire such affluence. Spoiled kids think the affluence should come automatically and, if it doesn't, the corporations are keeping them down. Also, the confusion between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes (and the mistaken equating of equality and sameness).
Also, there's no COST in hating America. It's easy. Write an "I hate America" book and you'll make millions and get your rocks off like you've struck a blow against "the man" and (though you've convinced yourself otherwise) at no cost to you. Write an "I hate Muslim fanatic terrorists" and you'll get a jihad declared against you.
cont'd
If you are curious as to why such a great number of Jews, in particular, have this mindset (which, as I mentioned, many non-Jews do to) is addressed in "Why Jews are Liberal" by Norman Podhoretz. The seeds are to be found in the Jewish faith/culture – the concept of "tikkun olam"/repair of the world, the reflexive favoring of the underdog mentioned above (even though Jewish tradition tells them "not to favor the poor man"), the self-loathing engendered by a history of persecution, and many other concepts.
I love how Zinn's defenders on that site keep dancing around the real issue. They twist Zinn's words and try to justify Zinn's obvious hatred of America with "context". Everything Zinn stood for is against who we are as Americans.
nice thread, people. Well reasoned and said…
Thanks for continuing to identify these destructive, fraudulent weasels. A great public service.
You make some interesting and cogent observations, Kristine, but I feel the need to make a couple clarifications:
While the Acts of the Apostles mention the communalism of the earliest Chistian communities, it also mentions that Peter quickly had to make the same adjustment which the 17th Century Pilgims made in Plymouth Colony. You also include the Franciscans in your list of communal experiments; last I looked, the order is doing just fine, as are the Dominicans, the Benedictines, Cistercians, and scores of other religious communities which take vows of poverty. This has also been the case for Bhuddist monks and nuns, and there may be Hindi and Muslim counterparts as well.
Thomas More, who vas vey aware of the limitations of human nature, called his imaginary communal society "Utopia" for the very reason that he recognized that such a human society was impossible.
The important distinction which must be drawn is that for More, the Essenes, the First Century Christians, and the numerous religious orders is that the communalism is a VOLUNTARY commitment on the part of the members of these various communities. All of these exceptions require a spiritual commitment made on the personal level. Those who can't accept it are free to leave.
It is when the religious and voluntary elements are removed that the problems emerge. The Progressive movement in America emerged from the Social Gospel movement, which separated the religious and social elements of the Gospels, and preached that human progress in science and politics made it possible for modern men to produce Heaven on earth.
Kristine, which bible has been confirmed? the Jewish one? the Christian one? LDS? Koran?__Also, a lot of your arguments might be an argument for some type of creator or designer but not necessarily for a loving , personal God.
Wow, Walter—
Life must be so goldarned easy when you don't have to use your brain. Just apply the EZ stick label direct from HuffPo to any ideas that make your head hurt, and go on appreciating your morally-evolved self in the mirror.
“I believe that we need a society where the motive for the economic system is not corporate profit, but the motive is the welfare of people … Where there is a greater equalization of wealth, and a society which is peaceful, which devotes its resources to helping people in the country and elsewhere.
—————————–
I guess that is why Matt Demon and Zinn's other Follywood acolytes live amongst the poor, donate the bulk of their wealth to the poor, and forgo all of the celebrity trappings such as expensive clothes, houses, food, vacations, yachts, limos, etc.
Yet, these are the people who churn out Christians-are-hypocrite movies year after year.
"Public schools have become hotbeds of anti-American indoctrination over the last four decades. It is about time that they restored the will of the people when it comes to public education, and embrace the dictates of their own education codes – the same education codes that state, in relevant part: "
Esquire. Excellent work. But good luck.
Some people just want to see the world burn. And some ships are not worth the cost of saving. If you can build a better, faster ship in less time then why look back?
"He believed in a utopian one-world vision where war ends and wealth is distributed equally,"
Um. Mr. Damon. I'm waiting for my cut.
Citizen Shapiro, much like citizen Roy Cohen, is ready to condemn anyone who doesn't believe as he believes as an anti-American propagandist. How many times are the right wing loonies going to re-tread that worn out tire?
Wild. Eh.
My little candle has been shining on the mortgage market and the GSE's since mid-2006. And they are still raping Fannie and Freddie while Ben and Timmy throw smoke and mirrors.
Stergeye, you are completely correct, especially in regards to the early Christians. I was merely trying to point out the intellectual history that predated Marx and the Progressive/Socialist. And again, you are completely correct at pointing out that while the Christian communitarians was voluntary, and the modern Progressive/Socialist divorced God from their communitarinism. But, I would contend that once you take god out of the equation, all that leaves is force, death, and a human false-god that allows for repression of the masses involuntarily.
As many times as the leftist loonies label anyone who disagrees with them a "hater," a "racist," a "Nazi," and other such epithets that you paragons of tolerance see fit.
Well, as Lenin said, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. I'm sure Trotsky agreed with that sentiment, at least until he wound up with an ice pick in him.
I'm probably the only poster here who can say he actually dropped a cousre with Zinn. I read the People's History and thought it would be fun to cross swords with him. I signed up for a 400-level seminar, but when I arrived at the classroom there was a sign saying that it had been moved to a lecture hall. There were about 80 kids in the hall, all there for his special brand of lefty lunacy and the gentleman's B. He arrived about 10 minutes late, trailing a tail of fawning grad students. He mounted the stage and held up a piece of paper, saying that this is what my signature looks like when you forge it on your class transfer paperwork.
I went to his office hours immediately following to drop the class. I told him I didn't want to waste any time in a class with as little rigor as this one was obviously going to have with 80 students. Because I was a Boston University Trustee Scholar (which he knew), he only said that I was the first student in memory to drop one of his courses. I don't know if that says more about me or the average BU student…
You people are sick, using a man's death to mercilously attack him like this. Most of you probably don't even know who this guy is.
"Howard Zinn was an anti-American secular humanist with heavily Marxist leanings." I am a secular humanist and therefore completely pro-America, pro-capitalism, pro-freedom.
Conservatives who write this way should stop and consider whether they're presenting a false alternative.
Because it isn't the mere fact of disagreement that's relevant. It's what the disagreement is about, i.e. what Zinn and his ilk believe(d). To be pro-Marxism is to be anti-capitalism, and therefore anti-freedom, and therefore anti-the-most-basic-essential-required-to-thrive, i.e. to be anti-life. In a phrase, to embrace an evil philosophy. When one does so with the maturity, education, and knowledge of someone like Zinn, it can only be willful, conscious evil, not error.
It's not a case of reasonable men differing.
no they are not.
right, because you set the terms of reasonable debate. got it.
[...] health care industry Mark Epstein: Can Obama get any statistic right? Ben Shapiro, Big Hollywood: HOWARD ZINN’S LEGACY: Religious Fanaticism and Illegal Indoctrination of Your Children No Sheeples Here: Mistrust Those In Whom The Urge To Punish Is Strong Dick Morris & Eileen [...]
employing the logic you used a few posts back to equate marxism with death, I could argue: if you are humanist, you are against god, and therefore against life, are pro-death, and in league with satan. makes sense, right?
You could lie down on Zinn's grave and cry liitle girl tears. That'll make you feel better.
Ditto.
I saw you on there with a guy named Malcolm. All he did was contort Zinn's own words to sound less damaging than they really are. then he refused to even admit that what Zinn believed was even partially false. Talk about brain washed….
Well said, BamaMan. Matt Damon's hypocritical ideology is becoming less savory and more scary by the day… Hooray for Hollywood!
[...] (NEA) Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer Ben Shapiro, Big Hollywood: HOWARD ZINN’S LEGACY: Religious Fanaticism and Illegal Indoctrination of Your Children and Illegality of Using Zinn Education Project in California Schools Gateway Pundit: Obama Now [...]
Oh, God can easily be rejected, Walter. You've done it to countless gods of religions outside your own, I'm sure. Why is turnabout NOT fair play?
I find the abhorrent fear of anyone with an idea you don't personally approve of to be the MOST un-American sentiment involved. We are a melting pot of more than just people or races, but of ideas as well. I think Howard Zinn and Glenn Beck should both be able to propagate their own twisted versions of American History. And then those of us in the middle can take the best parts from both and probably get a much more accurate picture than either side has.
You stay classy, San Diego!
Is it a mere reasonable difference of opinion in light of 100 years of actual history? 100 million dead as a direct result of Communist domination of certain countries, millions more enslaved. Not coincidental, cause and effect.
The abrogation of individual rights such as those to freedom, property, and voluntary trade is built-in to Communist doctrine, so one could hardly argue that "those guys distorted Marxism."
We're not arguing around the edges here, or confronting a new idea.
If this were an argument about, say, slavery of blacks in America during the 19th century or Africa in the 18th-20th, I doubt you would regard as a reasonable difference of opinion anyone who sided with the slavery advocate.
You may have the last word here. Regrettably, I haven't time to continue debating you today.
God is SO not totally in control…
He wanted to debate a premise that I reject out of hand – that the U.S. is basically evil.
mossy not withstanding – no – anarchism is the absence/elimination of government. If one believes in civilization and legitimate government – you can't reconcile anarchy as being principaled.
If you disagree with an anarchists "principles" – he kills you – or bombs your house. So – not principaled.
Make a clear defense of Zinn's Marxism. Then reconcile his Marxism and collection of a salary from Boston U.
Hypocracy – you are Zinn, in spades.
He was also debating that Zinn never said the things he actually said. I found it to be ridiculous. He also tried to be a sanctimonious jackass about it.
1) Big Bang and creation of the Universe… How did it begin, and how come it is perfect, similar to a Clock or machinery. Is it just pure dumb luck that Mankind, animals, and the floura and fauna lives on a planet that supports our life, and within strict restrictions.
Not having these answers is not a reason to automatically put it in the hands of a higher power. When you consider the billions of billions of places without life, yes, it is believable that we ARE just a lucky mix of the right ingredients.
2) Why many people have the same death experience (based on those that died and were brought back to life), of feeling a white light, calming love, and seeing and communicating with loved ones.
Yes, obviously they are kicking it in heaven for those few minutes. No OTHER explanation.
3) the 12 grams that scientist cannot explain that disappears when a person dies, some say it is the soul.
The old tale is actually that it weighed 21 grams. Modern science has disproved this spooky but untrue notion.
4) Why mankind believes in an almost universal set of good and evil.
Unfortunately there are wildly varying notions of right and wrong just within our own country let alone the myriad different cultures here on Earth. There are a few universally accepted ones, mostly dealing with self-preservation (Thou shall not kill, for example, though we have many exceptions to that one, no?)
5) Why is mankind the only creature on Earth (and as far as we know the universe) that can comprehend its past, has emotions, feels the need to cover up their flesh, and as the ability to think our solutions.
Similarly why is it the only one that feels compelled to owe it's existence to a benevolent God figure? It's sort of a chicken and egg situation there… We feel the need to explain our existence because we are aware of it. You may say sentience is a result of God… I'd argue God is the result of sentience.
6) If there is no god, what separates mankind from the common roach, and if there is a difference why.
Nothing really, though the aforementioned sense of sentience makes us a much more compassionate and contemplative species. We have the choice of whether or not to step on said cockroach. Therein lies the gray area that religion attempts to regulate and explain for us. Again, don't peg the symptom as the cause.
I welcome any "proof" you have to offer.
Well said. I have always find it interesting that people like Mr. Shapiro say that they are arguing Collectivism vs. Individualism, yet they are subtlely arguing not in favor of Individualism, but merely a different kind of conformity. In the case of Mr. Shapiro, there is clearly only ONE type of political view that he feels should be allowed.
Bobbo, well written and well thought out. Thanks.
Good for you, Brutus.
I would say you are evil.
I believe in that!
I love you, Triplex. You always add to the debate!
Ya, ridiculous. I have bigger fish to fry. As I tell the girlfriend – "17th" grade is a liittle bit more difficult than debating a defender of a dead Marxist douche'.
What's more interesting is that these "collectivist" – like Zinn – are blatant hypocrites.
If you can get one pried away from their laptops and i-pods, they praise the statist dogma – then get in their comfortable cars and drive on down the road of capitalism.
I see you are protesting school districts that include Howard Zinn, but you don't criticize them when they teach about Billy Sunday and the fundamentalist movement in the United States.
In the Breitbart/Shapiro world, children should only be taught half the truth, and that half should be decided by Breitbart/Shapiro.
Of course, I grew up in Appalachia in the 50s and 60s, so I was taught from the bible and was pretty much lied to all the way through the 12th grade. I sure had a lot of catching up to do when I got into college.
For instance, I bet just like my public school upbringing, you would really prefer that children are not taught about "The Bible Riots" or your predecessors "the Know-Nothings". Called that because every time you asked them what they believed in they always said: "I know nothing, I see nothing."
Keep it up Know Nothing.
yay, I get the last word. I would point out (a) one can argue the deaths were results of dictators rather than ideology per se (nice try to preemptively disallow an argument, though!). Pinochet, for example, loved the free market, and was not shy about killing people who challenged his rule; and (b) you make no meaningful distinction between economic, political or cultural marxism (hint: only the first has direct relevance to governance), let alone the distinction between marxism and communism.
I win.
Would you like a fainting couch?
They must be falling down on the job over and Poofington Host. Walter didn't use the word "hater."
The difference is that only one's ideas are being implemented into public school systems – and for teaching children too young not to know any better. In colleges and universities?… Fine. But in public school systems?… That would be called indoctrination.
What is interesting about this debate that Jeff and Marvin are having is this: the inability for the Left to finally just own up to the fact that their idea of "liberty" is simply not the same as the one the Founding Fathers propounded. The difference b/t Left and Right is as Sowell set forth – Constrained v. Unconstrained. I think if the Left just finally admitted it than the American people could have a much better idea what their choices are. Right now the Left has so distorted what liberty means, so distorted the Constitution that most Americans are confused about the whole thing.
Our debates would be so much more productive if the Left would just be honest. Otherwise, we're all usually arguing in circles.
And, no excuses for my fellow Jews – it is to my great sadness and shame that so many of my co-religionists trash this magnificent country and only seem to say anything positive about it when directly challenged.
Well in that case wouldn't the more prudent action be to take a more active interest in who is running the schools? At the same time, couldn't there be a reason SO MANY schools have used his work to teach? (And keep in mind that rarely are books used in an educational environment when students are NOT asked to compare and contrast other viewpoints with those of the author) I just have a hard time thinking that the only explanation that certain books make the reading lists is some nefarious underground plot by the liberal left to undermine your authority with your children. The point of an education is NOT to teach you everything just as your parents believe it to be. It's to equip you with the ability to ration out the facts from the BS, to analyze the gray areas where the real tough choices in life lie.
Hmm, trying to respond, Adam, but the opinion overlords seem to have flagged my viewpoint as offensive to the hivemind…
I'm almost at the point where I just want to smack anyone who invokes "context." Way too many people get away with outrageous statements with that one word.
[...] Howard Zinn’s Legacy: Religious fanaticism and illegal indoctrination of your children, by Ben Shapiro. [...]
You wish. Communism is wrong and evil, period–and it's not at far from Marxism, which is no better. Everyone is subjugated to the will of some nebulous collective that doesn't value individuals at all. If you can't see the evil in that, then there's no hope for you.
Wrong. *You* don't even know who this guy is. You think he's some kind of great man, but he's the exact opposite.
I'll take my crutch over not having a purpose any day. I agree that religion in any form should not be taught in public schools but I also believe that they should not be allowed to teach against them either. Our public schools are a haven for all other sorts of theories and have become outdated and irrelevant on many levels. It is up to parents to teach religion! What defines your morals or even smaller still your idea of morals? Good luck with your "face value" approach to life.
Hey! Did you see Get Shorty? Gene Hackman played a B movie director named Howard Zinn in that one. Got his azz kicked by a Mob guy after spouting off a bunch of crap. Was this a subliminal message?
While there is no doubt that Zinn is promoting a secular humanist and anti-American agenda, the real reason to reject his works is even simpler. It is very bad history. It wouldn't qualify as historical writing in any professional context that took balance and factual data seriously.
Communism by any other name is still that…
And so it is with Zinn and his nitwit liberal enablers in Hollywood. They assuage their egos by embracing a philosophy that would strip 99% of their own earnings away from them knowing damn well it won't happen.
Very chic. The personification of 'limousine liberals'. But now, when they go to Spago and spend $115 on lunch
they can feel 'one with the common man' because they did three minutes with Zinn on local cable.
This fraud is naked. Even the 'regular guys' know Damon and his ilk to be poseurs not worthy of comment.
It's why the loggerhead between Hollywood not caring if we see the shite they create, and us parting with nary a farthing for their efforts.
We'll see who wins this battle…
Excellent post, Kristine!
There are a lot of books out there that deal with this issue of the merger of religion and politics. Personally, I would recommend Michael Burleigh's "Earthly Powers" and "Sacred Causes," which cover the history of European totalitarian movements from the French Revolution up to today. It's fascinating reading.
Fail. communism is distinct from marxism, and (at most) only draws from what might be termed political marxism. but this exposes a deeper problem with your thinking, which is the automatic assumption I'm defending either.
Well, your name is correct.
I wasted a few days on Newsreal bashing Zinn – to the howls of a chorus of Zinn sychophants.
These trolls had the dictionaries out, $20 words at the ready – a ZERO actual defense of Zinn's Marxism.
This is a bit overwrought. I find ZInn offensive and objectionable, but one must distinguish between teaching Zinn's "curriculum" vs. simply recommending one of his books on reading lists that are routinely ignored by students. The former is obviously cause for concern; the latter, hardly. It's the difference between assigning a student to read Mein Kampf versus letting Adolf Hitler design your curriculum.
This article reads like a B-grade college term paper, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
"Why do you think the original lectures where in latin; where in some times and places latin was not understood by the common people, some workers in the field and not having the time to learn latin"
Lame!!! In a world of many languages but limited wealth and hence, limited literacy, it was much easier for a Church serving people of diverse tongues to communicate across boundaries by using one common language, Latin. At the time Latin became the Church's official language, it was akin to today's English – understood by more people in more places than any other language. And it remained a common language among the educated for centuries. Thus, say, an Englishman and a German could correspond in Latin despite having different native tongues. Each had to learn only one additional language to communicate with educated folks anywhere else.
And for those worried that the common folk might have got left out of the chatter because they couldn't read or understand Latin – well, they couldn't read their own vernacular or anything else either. They couldn't afford books (which didn't become widely available until after the invention of the printing press, of course) and they wouldn't know how to make sense of the markings in them if they could. But homilies – which would typically discuss the day's scripture readings as they applied to day-to-day life – were always in the local tongue.
That the use of Latin remained in the liturgy for centuries after people became more widely literate, books became affordable and native translations more practical to undertake, does not alter the fact that the use of Latin actually began as a facilitator of communication rather than an inhibitor of it. Critics of the use of Latin in later centuries also seem oblivious to the fact that during those later times, people had bible translations in the vernacular and followed along at mass with missals which translated the Latin used by the priest. So Latin was not an impediment to understanding then, either.
Well, accepting any standard of morals and trying to live by them is much harder. Christianity has standards. Note that I stated "trying" so no gleeful pointing at the failure of one person or another as "proof" the whole thing is bunk.
Oh has anyone noticed that some of the atheists that popped up on this thread seem to think that simply being an atheist makes one rational and yet their snarky remarks towards those with religious beliefs are anything but rational?
OK, maybe working now…
I offer the following:
"We were not born critical of existing society. There was a moment in our lives (or a month, or a year) when certain facts appeared before us, startled us, and then caused us to question beliefs that were strongly fixed in our consciousness-embedded there by years of family prejudices, orthodox schooling, imbibing of newspapers, radio, and television. This would seem to lead to a simple conclusion: that we all have an enormous responsibility to bring to the attention of others information they do not have, which has the potential of causing them to rethink long-held ideas."
Not a bad set of thoughts, and oddly parallel with what I hear many conservatives rallying other towards… A questioning of the mainstream sources of information. A dependence on your own reasoning ability to make choices about the future of you, your family, your government.
The source of the quote? A certain Howard Zinn.
You don't figure college is worth it?
We can only hope in the Afterlife Zinn enjoys a lovely reunion with all his comrades – Che, Josef, Adolf, Mao, Pot…all the boys are waiting Howie.
I hope they give you exactly what you deserve.
You should really look up Martin Luther. Of course Latin was used as a form of control. If what you are saying was true, the church would have had no problem with people translating the bible but at this time it was discouraged (I'm not implying that the reasons for Luther's problems with the church were solely because of him translating the bible into the vernacular, just giving an example of some of the effects of having a "mass" produced accessible bible can be).
"But homilies – which would typically discuss the day's scripture readings as they applied to day-to-day life – were always in the local tongue…" You forgot to add to this "as interpreted by the clergy"
If you want to look into how corrupt the Church was around this time look up Pope Alexander VI.
Protestant propaganda wrapped around a grain of half-truth, spouted by one fixated strictly on the English language. In point of fact there were authorized translations of the Bible in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian, all even before the printing press. The old canard that translating the Bible into the vernacular was treated as heresy falls completely apart in light of those undeniable facts. Nevertheless, the myth remains, with the sole example given as the experience of William Tyndale for making an unauthorized translation into English in the 1500s. For this to even come close to supporting the charge that Latin was used as control, one would have to disregard that English was hardly the only language spoken by common folk at the time. The truth is that Tyndale's version was condemned not because it was in English but because it (1) was not subject to review and approval for accuracy and in fact contained errors, and (2) it contained introductory essays basically to the effect of "the Catholic Church sucks." But eventually there became available an English translation authorized by the Catholic Church and published before the King James version.
As for Luther, he tried to remove not only those Old Testament books which to this day are misnamed "the Apocrypha," but also New Testament books such as Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (can you imagine a Protestant without that book today?). He also falsified Rom. 3:28 by adding the word alone (by faith alone)," when the only place "faith" and "alone" truly appear side by side is in James where it expressly states that salvation is "NOT by faith alone." And again, there was already an approved German translation before Luther.
The only control the Church – which defined the canon in the first place – wanted was prevention of the inevitable anarchy that would and did occur as soon as people started altering texts and pronouncing that all one ever need is to read the Bible and interpret it on his own. There are now some 30,000 protestant "churches" as a result. What the sins of Pope Alexander or anyone else has to do with so-called "control by Latin" is beyond me. Heck, Pope A ought to be a hero to those who tout Luther as the end-all and be-all. After all, it was he who said, "Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders." Truly inspiring, that.
Yes, Dear, we all know very well who he is.
Tell that to the people it's killed. I doubt that they saw any difference between Marx and, say, Stalin or Castro.
Oh, shut up. I'm sick of you leftist loons pretending to be so open and accepting in contrast to us. There's such a thing as responsibility that comes with free speech.
You must be logged in to post a comment.