You've touched on one of my pet peeves. I've seen countless examples of this type of thing with my daughter's education. Unfortunately, it has had an effect on students. She's often heard the words "greedy Catholics" or other such comments by students in the classroom, while the teacher just sits back and says nothing.

She has countered this the best she can. She and I research and discuss these issues. She'll counter what the teachers say in class, and she's used theese subjects as topics for her own papers in order to educate the teachers.

The general response from the teachers when she counters them is along the lines of "Oh." Sadly, they seem to have no real desire to learn or teach the truth.

The one sidedness of textbooks defies reason.

I remember in high school when we were studying the Reformation and the teacher said that Luther had returned to reason and I said, "Mr. _____, what was his reason for throwing James out of the Bible?" He said, "What?" and I said, "Well, I mean, you just said Luther wanted to return to reason, but he threw out any book in the Bible which disagreed with what he was teaching. What was the reason?"

A girl in the room starting yelling at me to shut up. I said, "Liz, I was actually curious. What was the reason?" I was promptly silenced.

This was a public high school.

While discussing evolution in biology class, I asked about Michael Behe. (I've heard Behe speak at BC, and while I think he is a great man asking good questions, I question his conclusions.) I was told I couldn't ask questions like that as they confused the class. I should wait until after class. After class I went to the teacher and asked. He told me Behe was wrong. I asked where Behe was going wrong. He told me he was, and that was all I needed to know.

What are we paying these public school teachers to do?

Why noty send these well written and well documented items to that notoriously ignorant Sally Quinn at the Washington Post "On Faith" (sic)column?

At the risk of being shouted down, color me a doubter.

"Examples abound, yet the same approach is rarely used with other religions and cultures."

On the contrary, the approach is quite common in American society. It usually applies to people, groups, or institutions in power. It's part of a quasi-egalitarianism that is endemic to our country. Let me give you a list: lawyers, politicians, televangelists, the New York Yankees, corporations, Nixon, Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, Barry Bonds, Charlie Sheen, etc..

American culture loves to tear down the rich and powerful. Almost as much as it loves to worship its heroes.

I count it as a compliment the Church is still relevant enough in the culture's eyes to merit this kind of attention. When they start ignoring us, then I'll get worried.

Okay, Todd. I agree-- bashing the Yankees or the fabulously well-to-do may be a great American sport and a sort of back-handed compliment.

But what does that have to do with textbook publishers who are charged with shaping young minds and their academic dishonesty?

It may be one thing to caricature George Steinbrenner as an impatient ogre who rules Yankeedom with an iron fist in a bar room; it's quite another to present the Catholic Church as the source of all evil throughout history in an academic setting.

"But what does that have to do with textbook publishers who are charged with shaping young minds and their academic dishonesty?"

Good question. I'm not saying that non-Catholics don't give Catholics a bad rap. The evangelicals are certainly big offenders in that area. You and I might be as sensitive to it as, say, the Obamas and their former pastor might be to racism.

Like Blacks, we experience it in subtle and not-so-subtle ways in society. I think our burden is somewhat lighter than that of the American Black. But I think we are as sensitive to it as Blacks are to racism or Yankee fans in Boston.

What does that mean? Maybe we can get over-sensitive. Sometimes we might be absolutely right.

"(I)t's quite another to present the Catholic Church as the source of all evil throughout history in an academic setting."

Danny, we come off as whiners when we toss statements like this around too casually. All evil? All? Really?

No.

Hitler still gets his share. As do drunk drivers, Christopher Columbus, and the winners of the West.

I wouldn't say you're not right some of the time. But I think we Catholics can do much better in terms of PR-ing our own image. I don't mean to be a pollyanna about it, but I think there are positive things every Catholic can do, from the school student to the bishop, to begin work now to alter the image some have of the Catholic Church.

I've talked and blogged about this a good bit over the past several years. I think this is one area where we just have to take our knocks, preferably with a sense of humor. We're a pretty powerful institution, probably the greatest single force in the realm of religion. I think we can take a few unfair hits and come out smiling. And ready to refute when the time is right.

Thanks for the lecture on having a good sense of humor, Todd. But really, I'm good. I do make a living drawing cartoons as well.

You said, "I don't mean to be a pollyanna about it..."

All I can do is leave you with this:

Those who deny light perfectly adapt to living in darkness! Let us "suffer the slings and arrow of outrageous fortune," take the knocks as it were, and idly stand by while all that is good and wholesome is trampled underfoot.

I highly recommend "Christ the King, Lord of History" by Anne W. Carrol. It should have a place in every Catholic home. It's very readable and accurately portrays history from a Catholic perspective. It could easily be a summer read for a student approaching high school as a means of girding for the misinformation that's coming. It's interesting enough to read aloud to younger students.

An article such as this should be given the largest circulation possible. I would love to see if an organization such as Newsweek or Time would have the courage to print this straight forward and well written essay. John Adams would be proud that Americans still have the ability to think and articulate their thoughts in such an expressive, coherent manner.

Thanks for replying, Danny. I don't think the point of answering the question you asked me was to say you needed a sense of humor. It was really only a side point that perhaps "we" Catholics could rely on it a bit more.

In fact, the only time I mentioned "you" in my answer was when I thought "you" were right some of the time about anti-Catholic bias.

Let me give you another. Like Stephen, I think you're a good writer. My opinion, but I think your line I quoted in my last post is a gross exaggeration, and a good reason why a mainstream secular periodical wouldn't print this.

Tell you what: let's keep in touch. When my daughter starts going to public middle school in the Fall, I'll check her history book and see what it says about Catholicism or other sources of evil. We can pick it up from there.

Linda: Excellent suggestion of Anne Carroll's book, "Christ the King: Lord of History." I have a copy (although the cover is faded and a bit beat up."

I would also recommend any history books by Philip Hughes or Christopher Dawson (no relation to the former Montreal Expos and Cubs baseball player, Andre Dawson).

As a History major in college, one of the first things they taught us is that there is no such thing as unbiased history.

I don't bristle and flip on people for every percieved or actual slight against the Church. HOWEVER, in an academic setting, the record should be set straight. Galileo for instance, is a constant source of irritation, because people think he got into trouble for Heliocentrism...which is utter nonsense. People think the Crusades were because The Christians wanted to kill Muslims, Jews and steal Byzantine gold. In U.S. History books, biases go both ways....they can either be hagiographic and ignore our faults, saying we're the best...or they are like Howard Zinn's waste of paper depicting us as degraded savages.

History is a lot like a map. When you take the globe and flatten it, distortions occur. When you take history, as must functionally happen, and you "flatten" it into a history text, it takes on an entirely different perspective, the perspective of the person who wrote it. Whether it is by what the author chooses to write about, or rather not write about, or if they have a specific axe to grind, history, like everything else in social life (and social studies) is biased. This must be recognized by all who study it, and by all who want to understand our world.

The catholics are very biased, and how can you people say that the pope did not factor in the power the crusades would gain the catholic church, it was differently not a righteous crusade. It is a good thing that textbooks are not conforming to the wishes of the catholic church and deep catholic's tend to look at things a bit backwards. The rest are lucky that catholic's no longer have any power or we'd most likely be declared a heretic and be killed

I just want you all to know that there are teachers out there who try to represent the truth. I am not Catholic, but I do agree with much of what I have read. I believe that this does pertain to more than Catholicism though. Recently there have been claims brought to governments saying that things such as the Holocaust and World War II should be taken out of textbooks because some group does not believe in them. I believe that as long as parents are blogging about the problems instead of bringing them up to our politicians we will continue to have such problems. If parents would please let politicians know that there is a line between politically correct and lying that is being crossed many teachers will be muchly appreciative. I know many teachers that complain about what is in the textbooks and the limits we encounter when trying to teach students, but we are seen as whiny or putting ourselves before our students. It is to the point that the government is the one who "knows best" according to the law and we need help changing that.