ShareThis Page
Paul Kengor: Let’s give thanks to God, too |

Paul Kengor: Let’s give thanks to God, too


Every year at Thanksgiving I trek into Barnes & Noble for an annual ritual of self-mortification. I go to the children’s section and glimpse the book offerings for Thanksgiving.

A friend of mine works in that section, stocking the latest catalog of Thanksgiving books that the corporate folks at Barnes & Noble funnel in. I recall my first conversation with her a few years back.

“How are the Thanksgiving books?” I innocently asked.

“You don’t want to know,” she groaned. She found only one that mentioned giving thanks to God.

“Really?” I responded. “Then who are they giving thanks to?”

“Well,” she said vaguely. “They’re just thankful.”

“ ‘Thankful’ to whom?” I replied. She reiterated: “They’re just thankful.”

I repeated the ritual again this past Sunday. It was equally painful. Among the books featured in the display for kids: “Five Silly Turkeys,” “How to Catch a Turkey,” “Where is Baby’s Turkey?”

Notice a theme? Turkeys, turkeys, turkeys.

Well, not all turkeys. One “Thanksgiving” book particularly caught my eye: Fangsgiving. Presumably a nod to the vampires involved in the pilgrims’ great endeavor.

Well, that isn’t Thanksgiving. Note the complete neglect of God, which ought to be the starting point. For Thanksgiving in America, that was the intent from the outset. That should be the lesson here , especially in children’s books . But it isn’t.

I recently perused a Thanksgiving Day lesson at, a go-to source for teachers. On the main page was a 60-minute lesson plan titled, “Giving Thanks for Thanksgiving.” The introduction instructs the teacher: “Call students together. Ask students to think about some of their favorite holidays and what they like to do on these holidays. Tell students that Thanksgiving is coming up. Ask students what some of their favorite Thanksgiving traditions are. Read ‘Thanksgiving Day.’ ”

“Thanksgiving Day” is one of three books recommended, none of which mention God or religion. There are, however, bountiful references to Native Americans, various tribes, corn, stuffing, potatoes, pie, turkeys. The Creator even gets trumped by cranberry sauce.

The “review and closing” portion of the “Thanksgiving” lesson concluded with these guidelines for the teacher: “Have students line up to present their Thanksgiving fact and what they are thankful for. Congratulate the students on their hard work!”

Welcome, pilgrim, to the new world — a place, incidentally, that the pilgrims fled to for religious reasons.

And why was Thanksgiving started in America?

In 1789, America’s first president proclaimed a “day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” George Washington implored the heavens to “pardon our national and other transgressions” and urged the citizenry to practice “true religion and virtue.”

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln urged his countrymen to set aside the last Thursday of November “as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Subsequent presidents continued this civic-religious tradition. It was just that: a public holiday proclaimed to give thanks explicitly to God.

But that, ladies and gentlemen, was the old America. In the New America, we apparently know better. And in focusing not on God but turkeys, turkeys, turkeys, that’s what we’ve become —
a bunch of turkeys.

Look, obviously it’s good to be thankful. If we’re teaching children about Thanksgiving, however, can we at least teach them what it was supposed to be about?

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director
of The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.