return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:58:10 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
Hey Sharon - nice to see you return - looks like you can't leave this
subject alone after all. In reference to the Amicus Curiae (Friend of the
Court) brief by the Anthroposophical Society in America, you make some good
points.
Gary has posted this fascinating brief at the PLANS site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles.html#Lawsuit
and it deserves a good read, IMO.
Sharon wrote:
"It will be fascinating to see how that is argued. I suppose they
could argue "We are not a religion because we are a cult i.e.., a religion
in
the making" (sarcasm). As far as I know, there is no legal definition of
religion in US law so Anthroposophist lawyers may well have figured out a
good argument. I can't wait to hear it. For me, watching that argument will
be more of a thrill than watching the World Cup games."
Yes, it will be interesting though I don't think you need the sarcasm in
your line of thinking.
I think you are simply right. The problem is one of semantics. The word
"cult" is a loaded
and problematic word thanks to the likes of Jonestown, etc. I think it fits
but I understand the negative *feel* of the word so would be willing to try
"NRM"
(New Religious Movement) to describe Anthroposophy. I think the big
question regarding the suit is more about the intent of the amendment in the
Constitution.
Sharon wrote: "Religion scholars
have some basic tests to determine if something is a religion, they'll
usually ask whether the group has worship, reverence, community, rituals,
promise of life after death, doctrine, belief in supernatural
beings....those kinds of things. If I was PLANS' lawyers I'd take in as many
Steiner books as possible with titles like "Christianity as Mystical Fact",
"Knowledge of Higher Worlds", "Reincarnation and Karma: Two Fundamental
Truths of Human Existence", "Outline of Occult Science"....actually I'd try
to take in all 360 Steiner books because virtually every single one is an
expression of Steiner's religious worldview published by Anthroposophic
Presses. I'd also take in religion encyclopedias and I'd find me a religion
professor who would argue that it is a religion because of things like
"doctrine".
I would be surprised if scholars of religion with some knowledge of
Anthroposophy (and not themselves Anthroposophists) would have a hard time
describing it as a "religion" or religious belief system. Dictionaries
describe it as such. What's the problem - really?
The court will need to look at the *intent* of the amendment and whether
Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy schools violate that intent. Should American
citizens be forced to pay for a system of education based on incarnating
souls and creating a "campaign for a new social order?" No, they should
not. IMO.
From the Anthroposophical Society in Florida...
"Steiner (to the first Waldorf teachers) 'We shall only be able to achieve
our task if we see it as not only to do with the intellect and feeling-life,
but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in the highest sense.' The
task was the following: to help the soul-and-spirit being of the child,
which has at birth descended to earth from a pre-earthly existence, to find
its place in the physical world and to make it competent for life . . . .
Rudolf Steiner shows how the developing human being on the long and arduous
path into the physical world passes through a series of clearly defined
stages, which make definite inner and outer demands. Both the curriculum and
the methods of teaching of the new school, as he now described them, were
designed to meet these demands as well as possible through the right
pedagogical measures . . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The campaign for a new
social order had been especially well received in the big Waldorf Astoria
cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
I hope the PLANS lawyers have plenty of these types of quotes (and Sharon
provided some below) to show something honest and real to the judge as
opposed to the stuff presented in the Anthropop brief which describes
anthroposophy as a "cognitive methodology, a path to knowledge." When the
authors of the brief attempt a comparison with Dewey or Montessori with
Steiner's version of education (vis a vis the Constitution) I cannot help
but wonder if anyone will keep a straight face?
How will they explain Eugene Schwartz and his honest explanation of Waldorf
education...or the mandatory morning prayer or the reality of Eurythmy?
Etc.
- Walden
Steiner: "Those who have not entered the sphere of anthroposophical life
need a special preparation of their souls and hearts as well as the
constitution of soul belonging to the present age. Such preparation can be
acquired only through the life and activities in our groups and meetings.
There we adapt ourselves to a certain trend of thinking and feeling, so that
we realize the significance of matters that people in the outside world who
know nothing of anthroposophy will naturally regard as fantastic nonsense.
It might of course, be argued that anthroposophy could also be made more
widely known through public lectures given to entirely unprepared listeners;
but those who belong to our groups in a more intimate sense will realize
that the whole tone, the whole manner of delivering a lecture to an
unprepared public must necessarily be different from that of a lecture given
to those who through an inner urge and through their whole attitude, are
able to take seriously what the general public would not yet be able to
accept. Quite certainly this stage of things will not improve the immediate
future--on the contrary, the opposition will become stronger and stronger.
Opposition to anthroposophy in every domain will increase in the outside
world, just because it is in the highest degree necessary for our age, and
because what is the most essential at any particular time always encounters
the strongest resistance.
It may be asked: Why is this so? Why do human hearts resist so vehemently
just what is most needed in their epoch? An anthroposophist should be able
to understand this, but it is too complicated a matter to be made even
remotely clear to an unprepared public.
The student of anthroposophy knows of the existence of luciferic forces, of
luciferic beings who have lagged behind the general process of evolution."
(P. 85-86 Reincarnation and Karma: Two Fundamental Truths of Human
Existence, First English publication 1960. Anthroposophic Press, 1992).
Steiner: "In the next lecture I shall be able to speak more fully of what
can only be indicated today; for this is how a great initiate of modern
times tests those whom he thinks fit to be his followers. For the events
that are to take us into the spiritual world proceed from spiritual facts
that happen around us, or from a right understanding of them. And such a
voice, calling as it does to many people, is not to be regarded as a
hallucination; for through such a voice the leader whom we call by the name
of Christian Rosenkreutz speaks to those whom he chooses from among the
multitude to be his followers. The call proceeds from that individuality who
lived in a special incarnation in the thirteenth century. So that those who
have an experience of this kind have a sign, a token of recognition, through
which they can enter the spiritual world (p 41, Reincarnation and Karma: Two
Fundamental Truths of Human Existence, First English publication 1960.
Anthroposophic Press, 1992).
Sharon: When I read Steiner I feel like Mike feels about "Servant of the
Merciful".
PS: Another important case to watch is Freedom From Religion Foundation
versus Towey, Ashcroft, and Thompson. This suit challenges Bush's creation
of federal offices for faith-based initiatives.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply now for a No-Annual-Fee Discover® Platinum Card
0% Intro APR*, No Annual Fee, Up to 2% Cashback Bonus®
award* Start Saving Today - APPLY NOW! It's fast, easy and
secure.
http://click.topica.com/caacpgwb1dkiGb2QZUTf/DiscoverCard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1422
-- Topica Digest --
first Waldorf school in China planned
By dan dandugan.com
a Waldorf graduate's Biography
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By dan dandugan.com
Re: free choice of religion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: first Waldorf school in China planned
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:26:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: first Waldorf school in China planned
Alternative preschool closes
BY MICHAEL PETROCELLI, The Herald-Sun
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-506595.html
July 30, 2004 9:18 pm
DURHAM -- FOR RENT: Two-story Ninth Street house
with pentagonal sandbox, hut made of climbing
vines and two treehouses.
For a decade, the house was home not only to
Tammy Hughes and her family but also to scads of
3- to 5-year-olds who attended the Waldorf
preschool Hughes ran out of her living room and
her well-appointed back yard each day.
The school will not reopen this fall, however,
because Hughes is heading to China, where she
will help open that country's first school
practicing the alternative teaching method.
Hughes opened the Briar Rose Preschool in 1994 to
teach her son Lynden in the Waldorf method and
served about 10 students a year. Waldorf schools
emphasize teaching the whole child, promoting
individualism and de-emphasizing academics in the
early years.
Last week, Hughes was trying to distribute her
piles of toys and teaching tools to some of the
other Waldorf preschools in the area. Books,
clothes, dolls, crayons and sundry other items
clogged the rooms, the porch and the front lawn
of the house as Hughes, 41, sought to dismantle
the trappings of her life in North Carolina.
This week, she, her husband, Ian and Lynden set
off for their new lives. They plan to reach their
destination in September, traveling through
Europe and riding the Trans-Siberian Railway
across Russia and Mongolia to Beijing.
From there, they will make their way to Chengdu,
the capital of Sichuan province in China's
southwest, where the school will open this fall
in an old resort hotel on the city's outskirts.
The family will live in some of the hotel's 35
rooms.
The first Waldorf school began in Germany in
1919, and there are now several hundred around
the world, including in Asia. But, until now,
none of the schools were in China.
To Hughes, Waldorf education is about giving
children freedom, which is part of the reason
that helping to open a school in China appeals to
her.
"It's an exciting thing to have in China, where
there hasn't been a lot of freedom," she said.
At the same time, the Waldorf philosophy, which
is based on Christianity but also incorporates
elements of eastern religions, could be
threatening to Chinese authorities. The school
may have to disguise some of its methods publicly
to avoid the kind of suspicions that led Chinese
authorities to crack down on movements like Falun
Gong, a practice built around a physical
discipline similar to tai chi, she said.
"It's like a double life," Hughes said, "but who
doesn't lead a double life when a government is
corrupt."
The new life will be hard, especially if her son
ends up attending high school in husband Ian's
native New Zealand, as she expects. But the work,
she said, is important enough to merit the
sacrifice.
"If your calling is strong enough, that's what you need to follow," she said.
Gay Weaver, an Old West Durham resident whose son
Eli attended Briar Rose for two years, described
Hughes as a "kind, loving presence" who would
sing instructions to her students rather than
merely telling them.
"I never for an instant worried about my child
while he was in her care," she said.
Eli, 5, will be attending kindergarten at the
Emerson Waldorf School in Chapel Hill this year,
but Weaver said she regrets the school's closing
nonetheless.
"I just feel such a sense of loss that she is not
in my neighborhood, helping to nurture other
people's children," she said.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-506595.html
(c) Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. All
material on heraldsun.com is copyrighted by The
Durham Herald Company and may not be reproduced
or redistributed in any medium except as provided
in the site's Terms of Use.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:37:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: a Waldorf graduate's Biography
I've finished reading *Ingredients for the Making of a Woman* by
Suzanna Saumarez. Margaret Sachs was correct to characterize the book
as a vanity publication; it's an amateurish work with little literary
value. It's of interest to us here, however, because it's the
autobiography of a Waldorf student whose mother was a true believer
in Anthroposophy.
Saumarez conceals actual names and places, but it appears that she
went to Michael Hall in Sussex, associated with the Waldorf teacher
training Emerson College, which she calls "William Morris College."
She grew up in the insular Steiner community around the college. Her
vivid tales of rampant way-too-young sex and drug use are a powerful
indictment of laissez-faire childrearing.
Despite being a skeptic and a troublemaker at school, she accepts
much of the Anthroposophical world-view as given.
I'll post some quotes from the book in this and subsequent messages.
When she was in kindergarten:
*** start quotation (p. 23)
"O Michael the victorious
I make my circuit under thy shield
O Michael of the white steed
and of the bright brilliant blade
conqueror of the dragon
be thou at my back, thou ranger of the heavens
thou warrier of the king of all
O Michael the victorious, my pride and my guide
O Michael the victorious, the glory of mine eye."
We are celebrating Michaelmas day. The sky is both light and dark,
and the wind blusters through the falling leaves as they cascade,
yellow, brown and gold. It's a mighty day. I am inspired and
enraptured by the fiery figure, liquid light, of the archangel
Michael. I see him, armed to the teeth, with stars in his hair, God
at his side, and all the forces of good around him, slaying the
cringing, crawling, bloodthirsty dragon of evil and darkness. I too
will fight like St Michael; and I do.
Every morning I wake up and decide to be good, really good, like St
Michael. I'm usually in trouble by breakfast, though.
*** end quotation
[Saumarez, Suzanna. Ingredients for the Making of a Woman. Princeton,
NJ: Xlibris Corporation, 2003.]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 21:27:43 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Here, at last, is an answer to Akua's question about the German original for
the quotes I posted from Steiner's book The Universal Human. The passages
are from Steiner's lecture in Bern on January 9, 1916, which appears in GA
volume 165, Die geistigie Vereinigung der Menschheit durch den
Christus-Impuls. The version I quoted is the most recent English edition,
published by the Anthroposophic Presss in 1990.
Peter S.
))Peter,
))
))would you mind giving me the German title of the book in question, Rudolf
))Steiner, The Universal Human?
))
))Thanks, Akua
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 06:29:11 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
I was pleased to see a few responses to the article I posted from Richard
Dawkins. However nobody addressed the fundamental issue, and presumably
there are people posting here who do disagree with Dawkins on this issue of
assuming children will take up the religion of their families and culture.
Are there any comments?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer:
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=225&referral=Hotmail_tagline_July04&URL=http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;9681905;p?http://www.foxtel.com.au/2231.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:10:25 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
Some rich language in the Anthroposophical Society's amicus curiae brief:
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective.
Ah, yes, as it says in the disclaimers, no one who hasn't had
Anthroposophical training is qualified to criticize Anthroposophy.
"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical farrago
that plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is not the
kind of business that the Court should be about."
Hmm, telling a federal court that they have no business deciding a
church/state issue. The judge will love that.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:41:23 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Peter Farrel wrote:
"I was pleased to see a few responses to the article I posted from Richard
Dawkins. However nobody addressed the fundamental issue, and presumably
there are people posting here who do disagree with Dawkins on this issue of
assuming children will take up the religion of their families and culture.
Are there any comments?"
Hi Peter,
I enjoyed the article and agree with Richard Dawkins. Except where he seems
at odds with his own argument and states:
"For parents to influence their children's opinions and beliefs is
inevitable and proper."
Inevitable? Perhaps. Proper. Not in my opinion. I cringe when I hear my
kids parroting my views while chatting with their peers... until I realize
we actually *share* some views and they actually *do* believe in what they
are saying. I was never even comfortable seeing fellow enviro activists
dragging their kids along to the protest, knowing the cameras would use a
cute kid with a sign for the 6 o'clock news. So...
No, I do not agree that children should be expected to take up the religion
of their parents - neither do I agree that children should be forced or
expected to attend the church of their parents choice. I don't know what an
appropriate age of consent should be but I do think good honest
communication between all family members - and respect every which way - is
essential for healthy growth.
The dilemma, it seems, revolves around the democratic rights of the child in
the family/community/society. For some it is as simple as Mom and/or Dad
working to put food on the table and the kids eat what is there, attend the
school of the parents' choice and watch football with Dad on Sunday...
"because." For others it involves plenty of interesting discussions about
flavours of food, education and TV programs, etc. Can you guess where our
family is yet?! BTW, I occasionally ask my kids if they'd like to attend a
church service and I try not to *dump* on any religious path. I do
question those paths. There's a difference. If my kids asked to attend a
Christian Community service, however, I might try to dissuade them only
because of our Waldorf experience and the confusion and hurt that came from
that era. The wounds are still relatively fresh and even though a couple of
well intentioned Anthroposophists suggested we check out the Christian
Community I would do my democratic best to steer my kids away.
Waldorf is problematic either way as neither the parents nor the kids
usually have a clue as to the nature of the beast. At least my Catholic
friends know that at their children's Catholic school the kids will learn
lots about Catholicism (as well as other world religions) and that 2 +2=4.
At Waldorf schools it can take years for parents to understand St. Michael
and the Morning "Verse" and Eurythmy *and* that 2+2 is not the question...
because 4=2+2. Etc.
Thanks for the article.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:07:54 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: first Waldorf school in China planned
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Alternative preschool closes
)
) BY MICHAEL PETROCELLI, The Herald-Sun
) http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-506595.html
)
) July 30, 2004 9:18 pm
)
)) "It's an exciting thing to have in China, where
) there hasn't been a lot of freedom," she said.
)
) At the same time, the Waldorf philosophy, which
) is based on Christianity but also incorporates
) elements of eastern religions, could be
) threatening to Chinese authorities. The school
) may have to disguise some of its methods publicly
) to avoid the kind of suspicions that led Chinese
) authorities to crack down on movements like Falun
) Gong, a practice built around a physical
) discipline similar to tai chi, she said.
)
) "It's like a double life," Hughes said, "but who
) doesn't lead a double life when a government is
) corrupt."
)
So here we have it: a tacit admission that the host society (China, of
which I know little or nothing other than it's aproach probably wouldn't
fit where I (we?) live) *will* be subject to deception.
Perhaps His (or Her) Honour to preside over the PLANS case would be
interested in this too, as well as Dan's eager anticipation that His
Honour is to be appraised of the fact that he is incompetent to occupy
the bench on any matter Waldorf.
I wonder if we have a duty of responsibility to forward the Sun-Herald
article to China? To prevent us all winding up with a bad name.
Davy
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1423
-- Topica Digest --
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
Wandin Springs
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By lioncell gmx.net
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Steiner on skin color and race
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner on skin color and race
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner on skin color and race
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By lioncell gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:39:25 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective."
The judge may be irritated by this haughty language, and the peculiar notion
that introducing "documents" in a court case is somehow amiss. A "circus." A
hundred documents, Dan? Of all the nerve :)
The judge will probably not realize, though, how peculiarly anthroposophic
this seeming allergy to documented evidence is.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:50:17 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Walden said:
)I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views while chatting with their
)peers... until I realize we actually *share* some views and they actually
)*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never even comfortable seeing
)fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along to the protest, knowing
)the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for the 6 o'clock news. So...
I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs too.
Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the indoctrination my child
*hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a storm was coming on, the
sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting, dramatic cloud
formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks like Judgment Day out
there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?" I smile to myself, I've
done a *few* things right in parenting :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:55:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
And I *don't* offer to drive him to church now and then. :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:06:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Just couldn't resist jumping in here with an anecdote that is relevant.
Last spring (I hope my timing is correct on this .... I may be in error her! (g)) a friend of mine decided one weekend morning to take his five year old son on a day trip to Washington D.C.'s Smithsonian museum. (Like me, they live in a suburb of Baltimore.) As the father-son pair got off the Metro, they found themselves in the midst of a huge crowd of mostly women, who had come to the nation's capital that day to let the Bush administration know they supported abortion rights. My friend took his son's hand to lead him away from the crowd and toward the natural science museum (dinosaurs were the goal!) when a woman waving a big sign approached them.
"Wow, it's great to see a father bringing his son to the protest to stand up for a woman's right to choose!" she said, smiling broadly.
"Well, actually, ma'am, I brought my son here to stand up for his right to see a stegosaurus," he said.
We laughed about this encounter later, but both of us agreed there was something disturbing not just about the woman's assumptions (you know what they say about assuming? (BWG)), but also about the many people who *do* bring and I would contend, use, their children in protests of any kind. I am equally ill at ease when I see kids wielding "Choose Life" signs from their strollers as I am kids in backpacks with "Pro Child, Pro Family, Pro Choice" bumper stickers adorning the child carriers.
Though it is certainly our job as parents to guide our children and teach them what we think is important in the world, I think taking really young kids (kids too young to really form their own opinions) to these kinds of things is just not a great idea.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Sent: Aug 2, 2004 10:50 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGb1IpcOa/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walden said:
)I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views while chatting with their
)peers... until I realize we actually *share* some views and they actually
)*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never even comfortable seeing
)fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along to the protest, knowing
)the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for the 6 o'clock news. So...
I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs too.
Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the indoctrination my child
*hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a storm was coming on, the
sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting, dramatic cloud
formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks like Judgment Day out
there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?" I smile to myself, I've
done a *few* things right in parenting :)
Diana
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save up to 67% on Omaha Steaks + Get 6 FREE Burgers and a
FREE Cutlery Set + Cutting Board!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgpb1dkiGb1IpcOf/OmahaSteaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:21:32 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
Revisiting this . . .
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective."
Gosh, I sure hope the court does engage in hypotheses and interpretations!
That's its job. "Innuendoes" doesn't seem to belong in that category, but
when anthroposophists see Rudolf Steiner criticized, or any of their good
works reconsidered skeptically, it's all the same as far as they're
concerned. Right up there with PLANS' brash request that the court look at
"documents."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:23:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Walden wrote:
)If my kids asked to attend a Christian Community service, however, I might
)try to dissuade them only because of our Waldorf experience and the
)confusion and hurt that came from that era.
Someone here (defending anthroposophy) once asked me what I would do if my
son some day announces he's going to marry an anthroposophist. They were
trying to show everyone how narrow-minded I am. I think they were sure I
would have a cow, disown my son, tell him terrible things about
anthroposophists, refuse to attend the wedding, perhaps demand the children
be raised as skeptics, or kidnap them away from the evil influence of
anthroposophy . . . I replied that while I would be personally really not
thrilled about such a development, I would certainly welcome the person into
the family and do my very best to develop a good relationship with them. I
think I would have to try to smile politely and remain silent if the wedding
guests were all asked to recite Steiner verses :) (I would be really
fascinated to learn the details of an anthroposophic weddding, if there is
such a thing. Unfortunately, anthroposophic child rearing I already know all
about.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:24:32 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: Wandin Springs
I finally have to hand a hard copy of the 1992 report by Victoria
(Australia) agencies into this Anthro centre. I do hope the report will
be more widely available soon, but in the meantime the foloowing extract
might be of some interest:
"Several people providing statements displayed considerable anxiety
about the possibility of their information being released to the
Committee of Management or management staff of Wandin Springs.Two
parents expressed concern in writing as to whether their son would
receive unfavourable treatment if it became apparent that they had
spoken to the investigators. Several staff expressed fear of losing
their jobs and alleged that other staff had been forced to resign having
conflicted with management. Some former staff feared retaliation.."**
The report was compiled by Community Services Victoria under the aegis
of the Intellectually Disabled Persons Services Act. I earnestly urge
anyone on this list concerned with Special Needs care and "therapy" as
offered by anthroposophy to obtain for themselves a copy of this report
as a blueprint of how *not* to go about delivering the care you are
entrusted with.
I can anticipate accusations coming along, but it is intended to try to
*help* anthroposophy come out of the closet, because, really, thats all
critics seek.
Davy
**Report of the Investigation into Wandin Springs Private Training
Centre, Community Services Victoria, Melbourne, 1992. p12
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 22:00:38 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Here, at last, is an answer to Akua's question about the German
original for the quotes I posted from Steiner's book The Universal
Human. The passages are from Steiner's lecture in Bern on January 9,
1916, which appears in GA volume 165, Die geistigie Vereinigung der
Menschheit durch den Christus-Impuls. The version I quoted is the most
recent English edition, published by the Anthroposophic Presss in 1990.
Peter S.
Thanks a lot for the information, Peter!
I think you also cited the following Steiner quotation:
"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing
but a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe.”
I know this quotation but cannot recall from which book the quotation is
taken. Could you, Peter, or anyone else help me with it?
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:35:03 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Hi Akua,
)I think you also cited the following Steiner quotation:
)
)"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing but
)a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe.”
)
)I know this quotation but cannot recall from which book the quotation is
)taken. Could you, Peter, or anyone else help me with it?
That's from GA 349, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde (Dornach 1993), p.
53. The original reads: "Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und es ist
natürlich nur ein Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große Rolle
spielt." This entire 1923 lecture, which carries the title "Farbe und
Menschenrassen" ("Color and the Races of Humankind") was excised from the
otherwise complete English translation of the book it appeared in: Rudolf
Steiner, From Limestone to Lucifer, Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1999. Its
contents were evidently something of an embarrassment to English-speaking
anthroposophists -- yet more evidence that anthroposophists are the most
reliable authorities about their own doctrines.... I will post a selection
of quotes from this chapter shortly.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to ‘Dig Yourself Out of Debt’ from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:52:05 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner on skin color and race
Here are a few more passages from Steiner's 1923 lecture in Dornach on
"Color and the Races of Humankind", the one that somehow didn't make it into
the English edition of the book it appears in. There is, by the way, no
notice of this omission in the English translation of the book, apart from a
vague allusion on the copyright page. I have translated these passages from
the original: Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde.
Steiner begins the lecture by re-affirming the central importance of race to
a proper understanding of spiritual reality:
"One can only understand history and all of social life, including today's
social life, if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And
one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one
first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the color of their skin." (p. 52)
He then moves on to an overview of the various racial groups on the earth
today, offering very definite instruction about which races belong where:
"We here in Europe call ourselves the white race. If we go over to Asia, we
have mostly the yellow race. And if we go over to Africa, there we have the
black race. Those are also the original races. Everything else living in
these regions is based on migration. Thus when we ask which race belongs to
which part of the earth, we must say: the yellow race, the Mongols, the
Mongolian race belongs in Asia, the white race or the Caucasian race belongs
in Europe, and the black race or the Negro race belongs in Africa. The Negro
race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that this
race is now playing such a large role in Europe." (pp. 52-53)
Having laid the groundwork for his racial theory, Steiner embarks on an
extended disquisition on the distinctive features of each race, complete
with drawings to illustrate the physiological and mental differences among
black, yellow, and white racial groups. He reports that black people are
distinguished by their "rear-brain", yellow and brown people by their
"mid-brain", and white people by their "fore-brain", adding that black
people are marked by a powerful "instinctual life", yellow and brown people
by a potent "emotional life", and white people by a highly developed
"intellectual life". (p. 56) Steiner goes into considerable physical detail
about black people in particular:
"Let us look first at the blacks in Africa. These blacks in Africa have the
peculiar characteristic that they absorb all light and all warmth from
space. They take it in. And this light and warmth cannot penetrate through
the whole body, because after all a person is always a person, even if he is
black. It does not penetrate through the whole body, but lingers on the
surface of the skin, and the skin itself thus turns black. So a black in
Africa is therefore a person who absorbs as much warmth and light as
possible from space and assimilates it within himself. In this way the
energies of the cosmos affect the whole person. Everywhere he takes in light
and warmth, everywhere. He assimilates it inside of himself. There must be
something there that helps him in this assimilation. Now you see, what helps
him in this assimilation is his rear-brain. In the Negro the rear-brain is
therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal cord. And this is
able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are inside a person.
Therefore everything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly
developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives,
powerful instincts. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. And because
he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body surface, in his skin,
his whole metabolism operates as if he were being cooked inside by the sun.
That is where his instinctual life comes from. The Negro is constantly
cooking inside, and what feeds this fire is his rear-brain." (p. 55)
Steiner continues his series of racial contrasts by examining purported
differences between Asians and Europeans regarding technology. He claims
unconditionally that "Europe has always been the starting point for
everything that develops humanity in relation to the external world," while
"the Asians are incapable" of making inventions or technological discoveries
on their own – for that matter, Asians are incapable of even using European
inventions properly, according to Steiner. He tells his audience that this
is a matter of "natural disposition", and asserts without qualification:
"Very few inventions have been made in Asia. They can assemble things, but
as for inventions themselves, that is, that which arises from experience
with the external world, the Asians cannot do this." (p. 59)
After offering what he takes to be a humorous anecdote about Asian
technological ignorance, Steiner summarizes:
"This sort of independent thinking which Europeans develop in dealing with
their surroundings, the Asians do not have this. The Japanese will therefore
follow all the European inventions, but they will never think up something
on their own." (p. 59)
Expounding on the capacities of "the white race" to explore and inhabit all
parts of the globe, Steiner makes the apodictic pronouncement: "The whites
are the ones who actually develop humanity in themselves." (p. 62) He
presents this and his other claims about racial difference as a set of
objective spiritual facts, meant to impress upon his white audience the need
for mutual understanding and interracial cooperation, based on recognition
of the "natural dispositions" that mark each racial group. At the conclusion
of the lecture, Steiner offers a synopsis of his racial teachings:
"Thus it is really very interesting: on the one hand there is the black
race, which is the most earthly. When this race goes toward the West, it
dies out. Then there is the yellow race, in the middle between the earth and
the cosmos. When this race goes toward the East, it turns brown, it attaches
itself too much to the cosmos and dies out. The white race is the race of
the future, the spiritually creative race. [Die weiße Rasse is die
zukünftige, ist die am Geiste schaffende Rasse.]" (p. 67)
As always, I encourage anybody, particularly those anthroposophists who
consider themselves well situated to put such teachings in accurate
perspective, to comment on these passages from Steiner.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:46:04 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner on skin color and race
Hi Peter S,
Thanks (I think) for the Steiner quotes. Shame some of these tidbits don't
make it into the English editions. Most of the more meaningful quotes never
make to parent evenings, either. Hard to see the picture when the puzzle
pieces are constantly rearranged. Strange - all the easily digestible
quotes appear again and again and again at school meetings, leaving parents
lulled into a sense of ignorant bliss, content that maybe Steiner really was
a harmless artist, scientist, educator... whatever.
Question: In your experience, is history often fraught with convenient
mistranslations or omissions from one text to another - or are
Anthroposophical *slips* an anomaly?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:03:31 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on skin color and race
walden asks of Peter S
)
)Question: In your experience, is history often fraught with convenient
)mistranslations or omissions from one text to another - or are
)Anthroposophical *slips* an anomaly?
Peter F responds with:
Something similar appears to happen with Freud for reasons which may be
similar. A brief introduction may be found at
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=21&subject=Freud
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Smart Saving with ING Direct – earn 5.25% p.a. variable rate:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;7249209;8842331;n?http://www.ingdirect.com.au/burst6offer.asp?id=8
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:43:52 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Akua:
I think you also cited the following Steiner quotation:
"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing
but a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe.”
I know this quotation but cannot recall from which book the quotation is
taken. Could you, Peter, or anyone else help me with it?
Peter Staudenmaier responded:
That's from GA 349, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde (Dornach 1993),
p. 53. The original reads: "Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und
es ist natürlich nur ein Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große
Rolle spielt." This entire 1923 lecture, which carries the title "Farbe
und Menschenrassen" ("Color and the Races of Humankind") was excised
from the otherwise complete English translation of the book it appeared
in: Rudolf Steiner, From Limestone to Lucifer, Rudolf Steiner Press,
London 1999. Its contents were evidently something of an embarrassment
to English-speaking anthroposophists -- yet more evidence that
anthroposophists are the most reliable authorities about their own
doctrines.... I will post a selection of quotes from this chapter shortly.
Thanks, Peter, that'll be of help. Thanks also for the additional quotes
in your post "Steiner on skin color and race" some of which I already
knew, some of which I had previously been unfamiliar with.
Akua
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1424
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner and racism
By t.d.h optusnet.com.au
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in
Lawsuit
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re:
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Steiner on the races of mankind
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
Admin: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
By dan dandugan.com
Re: free choice of religion
By dan dandugan.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By dan dandugan.com
qualms with translations
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: free choice of religion
By dan dandugan.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:28:00 +0930
From: "Tom Howes" (t.d.h optusnet.com.au)
Subject: Steiner and racism
I have read that Steiner has in the past been 'in trouble' for his supposed
racist influences in his education ("The Dutch Report"). My daughter still
goes to Sat morning Anthro 'art' classes (insistence of ex partner and
totally against my wishes) and she came back with a beauty the other day.
Here is exactly what she relayed to me. Her story telling that morning
began with the tale of a woman with a hard working daughter and a lazy
daughter (this correlates with the bible story in the Old Testament of the
man with one hard working son and one lazy son, who gives them a chance to
prove themselves - the good son doing well and being profitable, and the bad
son making unwise decisions and coming out with nothing). The hard working
daughter lost something down a well one day and her mother sent her down to
find it. She found a mystical kingdom of lush green meadows, talking trees
and animals and poor people that needed help etc, and ended up doing good
deeds and bringing home gold for her mother. The mother gave the lazy
daughter a chance to redeem herself by bringing home gold for the family and
sent her to the well to look down it. The lazy daughter found herself in
the same mystical kingdom; however she refused to help any person or animal
and brought home no gold, but was instead covered in black tar and was told
that she would be black for the rest of her life. The end (or moral) of the
story was that naughty people will be black and good people will be pure,
hardworking and white. What do you think of that? I know what I think! This
is exactly how my 7 yr old relayed it to me.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
Mr. Staudenmeier,
You recently posted your translations of some Steiner.
I'm wondering if it would be convenient for you to
post the German original in its entirety as I am
conversant in German as well, and would be most
interested.
Vielen Dank,
Chris
(P.S. apologies for responding to digest format)
--- waldorf-critics topica.com wrote:
) -- Topica Digest --
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By momof2gals mindspring.com
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) Wandin Springs
) By jaquesdm msn.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Steiner on skin color and race
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By awaldenpond shaw.ca
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By feetapparel hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
)
------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:39:25 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical
) Society's brief
)
)
)
)
) "Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their
) intention to
) introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to
) which they hope
) to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court.
) While the
) Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the
) kind of circus of
) hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that
) plaintiff is
) apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly
) interested that such
) "evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the
) entity best
) situated to put it in accurate perspective."
)
) The judge may be irritated by this haughty language,
) and the peculiar notion
) that introducing "documents" in a court case is
) somehow amiss. A "circus." A
) hundred documents, Dan? Of all the nerve :)
)
) The judge will probably not realize, though, how
) peculiarly anthroposophic
) this seeming allergy to documented evidence is.
) Diana
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:50:17 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Walden said:
)
) )I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views
) while chatting with their
) )peers... until I realize we actually *share* some
) views and they actually
) )*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never
) even comfortable seeing
) )fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along
) to the protest, knowing
) )the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for
) the 6 o'clock news. So...
)
)
) I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs
) too.
)
) Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the
) indoctrination my child
) *hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a
) storm was coming on, the
) sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting,
) dramatic cloud
) formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks
) like Judgment Day out
) there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?"
) I smile to myself, I've
) done a *few* things right in parenting :)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:55:20 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
)
)
) And I *don't* offer to drive him to church now and
) then. :)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:06:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
) From: momof2gals mindspring.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Just couldn't resist jumping in here with an
) anecdote that is relevant.
)
) Last spring (I hope my timing is correct on this
) .... I may be in error her! (g)) a friend of mine
) decided one weekend morning to take his five year
) old son on a day trip to Washington D.C.'s
) Smithsonian museum. (Like me, they live in a suburb
) of Baltimore.) As the father-son pair got off the
) Metro, they found themselves in the midst of a huge
) crowd of mostly women, who had come to the nation's
) capital that day to let the Bush administration know
) they supported abortion rights. My friend took his
) son's hand to lead him away from the crowd and
) toward the natural science museum (dinosaurs were
) the goal!) when a woman waving a big sign approached
) them.
) "Wow, it's great to see a father bringing his son to
) the protest to stand up for a woman's right to
) choose!" she said, smiling broadly.
) "Well, actually, ma'am, I brought my son here to
) stand up for his right to see a stegosaurus," he
) said.
) We laughed about this encounter later, but both of
) us agreed there was something disturbing not just
) about the woman's assumptions (you know what they
) say about assuming? (BWG)), but also about the many
) people who *do* bring and I would contend, use,
) their children in protests of any kind. I am equally
) ill at ease when I see kids wielding "Choose Life"
) signs from their strollers as I am kids in backpacks
) with "Pro Child, Pro Family, Pro Choice" bumper
) stickers adorning the child carriers.
) Though it is certainly our job as parents to guide
) our children and teach them what we think is
) important in the world, I think taking really young
) kids (kids too young to really form their own
) opinions) to these kinds of things is just not a
) great idea.
) Lisa
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
) Sent: Aug 2, 2004 10:50 AM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
=== message truncated ===
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:26:44 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
At 08:17 AM 7/29/2004, Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
)on 7/28/04 10:43 PM, abd lomaxdesign.com at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
)
) )
) ) Just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of
) ) religious schools. Rather, I'm in favor of allowing *all* private
) ) schools a state reimbursement equal to what the school saves the state
) ) by educating a child, provided that the private school meets state
) ) requirements as equitably determined.
)
)Sharon: But we all pay school taxes, even if our kids are grown or we don't
)have any kids, so I don't see how private schools are saving the state
)money.
I've seen quite a bit of what I consider really bad reporting in the local
newspaper where the persons being quoted would seem to agree with Sharon.
Massachusetts has "school choice," which, as I understand it, means that
you can send your children to any public school (regular or charter), and
your local school district must pay the district of attendance a per-pupil
fee. So, the newspaper reported, the town of Easthampton was "losing" over
one million dollars a year because of students attending schools
out-of-district. Now, nowhere in any of these articles -- there have been a
whole series of them, all quoting the figure for the amount of the loss --
was there any discussion of the actual impact of the fee on the economics
of Easthampton schools. In fact, the other school districts were relieving
Easthampton of the costs of education of a substantial number of pupils. So
school choice was "costing" Easthampton, not the total figure for payments
to other districts, but some lesser figure, adjusted for the savings from
not having to hire as many teachers, not having to operate as many
classrooms, etc. If Easthampton does not have sufficient facilities to
educate all those students -- quite likely -- then Easthampton may even be
*saving* money, since Easthampton would have to build more classrooms....
Private schools save the state money because the provide, at private
expense, for the education of their students, thus relieving the state of
that burden. Really, the question is pretty simple. If the private schools
closed down, there would be increased enrollment in public schools. This
would require increased expenditure. The savings of private schools is how
much more would have to be spent were it not for the private schools.
Because of overhead expenses, this savings is not the entire expense of
educating a child. If there were a voucher system or equivalent allowing a
certain reimbursement to private schools for each student, this
reimbursement being calculated to approximate the savings to the public
schools generated by the operation of the private school, and generally
speaking, this reimbursement would not cover capital expenditures for
facilities and the like. In other words, if someone wished to start a
private school, the cost of the physical buildings in which the private
school is to be housed would have to come from private funding. (However,
to the extent that maintenance costs are related to the number of pupils
served, there might be some funding available for maintenance.)
Note that sometimes public schools, when they have an excess of students
for the available physical structures, will rent temporary structures, so,
averaged over a state, there might be *some* funding available for capital
expense amortization.
However, the system I'm envisioning would really not get into the details
of *how* the state funds were spent. Rather, those funds would be
considered quite the same as any disbursement of state funds for a service
rendered. If John Smith contracts with the state to provide some service,
how John Smith spends the money is *generally* not the business of the
state, as long as John Smith, Inc., performs the service as defined by the
state. John Smith's religion is not only irrelevant, the state is legally
estopped from even considering it. If John Smith spends his profits to
promote religion, (or to promote, for example, a political agenda), the
state is rightly unconcerned, it may not legally consider this in
determining whether or not to award the contract.
) Keeping an eye on whether a school meets requirements would add a
)tremendous cost to tax payers.
This is already happening. Essentially, there is a long overdue movement to
make public schools accountable, through testing. A simple implementation
of my vision would make reimbursement of private schools dependent upon
test results. An actual implementation might be a bit more complex, but
testing private schools students as well as public school students is very
little additional expenditure (and for all I know, it might already be
required in some states).
The state is willingly obligated to provide free education to all defined
students in its jurisdiction; because, almost certainly, some parents will
not choose private schools, so the state *must* provide public schools, and
such schools are quite properly prohibited from teaching religion (or, for
that matter, from promoting some particular political view). Since the
state must provide schools, it must incur the facility and overhead
expenses regardless. (However, if it were true that, say, all parents but
one with one child were to choose private schools, the state would still
provide, essentially, individual tutoring and education for that child....
but this is quite unlikely. Schools generally reflect the composition and
concerns of the communities in which they are located, so they will cater,
for the most part, to the majority; when they seriously stray from that,
school board members tend to lose the next election.)
Since the state will already be providing education to, probably, the
majority of students, the incremental per-pupil cost to the state will not
be the full cost of education, but some lower figure. As I'd see it, the
figure would be periodically revised to reflect actual enrollments and
current costs. Bottom line, in an ideal system, the net cost to the state
of each student enrolled outside the public school system would be zero.
Therefore it could not be said that the state was promoting religion if one
of the schools taking advantage of this system happened to *also* teach
religion. In general, the costs of teaching religion, being additional to
the cost of providing the state-required education, would be coming from
private funding.
) It would also be unfair for the state to
)provide a Christian school in one neighborhood for some families but to deny
)a Hindu family in the same neighborhood access to a Hindu school, or not to
)offer an atheist parent an atheist alternative for their children in that
)area.
Let me repeat this, since it is obviously not clear to Sharon. The state
would not be "providing" any schools other than public schools. It would be
making no decisions about where to site private schools. It would not be in
the business of catering to this or that religion or philosophy. It would
simply be making a certain level of funding (not the full cost, almost
certainly) available to private schools which are independently and
privately organized and created, and which, holding vouchers from parents,
used these vouchers to contract with the state to provide specified
educational and related services.
Some of these private schools might be religious in nature. Many would not.
(There are many private schools in our area; most, it seems, are not
religious.)
) How would you deal with things like women's equality and Gay rights?
How would you deal with global pollution, the AIDS epidemic, and chronic
lack of voter participation?
)Should the state support schools that teach that God hates gays or that
)women are subservient to men?
The state is not in the business of promoting or of refuting or denying
religious views. However, there are state laws, for example, regarding
employment discrimination; some of these might apply to private schools.
The best remedy for the kind of social evils described is public exposure.
Would *you* send your children to such a private school? Now, consider
this: do you want *your* children enrolled in a public school with a
substantial number of students whose parents are teaching them these things?
(If there were enough parents in a district that they'd want and be able to
go to the substantial trouble and expense of organizing a private school in
order to teach these views, then, with no private school, there would be a
substantial number of students being so indoctrinated at home....)
Now, in some countries, it is an offense to teach ethnic hatred, for
example. The state, with a showing of public necessity, *could* prohibit
certain kinds of teachings even in private schools.
This idea that vouchers will inevitably lead to an explosion of schools
dominated by this or that wacko group is a chimera, a bugaboo; this ignores
the economic reality that private schools would still require substantial
private expenditure and would still involve, in many cases, tuition. The
tuition would merely be lower than at present, enough lower that there
would be many more scholarships available.
) After all that has been done to get this far
)in our society, I think segregated faith schools would be a step backwards.
Segregated faith schools already exist. However, a voucher system might
require that schools, to qualify, not discriminate on the basis of religion
for admission; so, such schools might well not be segregated, just as
Catholic schools presently have many non-Catholic students who attend
because their parents think the education better than that available in
public schools.
)I also think it would be unfair to give vouchers out because there just
)aren't enough private schools to go around.
This is circular. If there is a voucher system, there will be more private
schools. Generally, to use a voucher, the parents may have to spend
additional funds (scholarships excepted) in order for their children to
attend private schools. Vouchers, however, would have one clear effect.
They would make private schooling more accessible to people of lower
economic status. Because of scholarships, it is likely that many private
schools would have open enrollment with tuition on a sliding scale, so the
poorest parents would pay nothing.
)I think public schools need revamping, it would be great if they could even
)be reinvented. I think some problems could be addressed by distributing tax
)monies more equitably--give poor neighborhoods the same amount as rich
)neighborhoods.
Or more money. In fact, this is what a voucher system could do. As long as
the per-pupil reimbursement to the private schools is below the incremental
cost to public schools, every private school student would *increase* the
per-pupil funding available for public school students.
Charter schools, by the way, are a different animal. They are *public*
schools, and the PLANS lawsuit deals with what can be done in *public*
schools. Much of it boils down to two questions, one being whether or not
anthroposophy is a religion. I find the arguments in the amicus brief
presented by the Anthroposophical Society cogent and quite likely to
prevail, if the court rules on the issue, which it may wisely avoid (and
that is the core of the amicus argument). The second issue, more to the
point, legally, is whether or not the defendants systematically engaged in
practices proscribed by the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And, personally, I find that to be a more difficult question, one quite
likely to be undecidable by summary judgement. In other words, the
immediate petition of the plaintiffs will probably be denied.
And I'd suggest to PLANS that they get a better lawyer. The summary
judgement documents were such as to be quite likely to irritate the judge,
presenting a huge amount of irrelevant material apparently premised on the
idea that a hundred weak and probably inadmissible pieces of evidence are
better than one. I.e., Rudolph Steiner said this or that thing which seems
like a religious idea, therefore anthroposophy is a religion. The AS amicus
brief quite well skewers that piece of illogic, pointing out that the
religion of Maria Montessori, for example, is irrelevant in determining
whether or not Montessori education is religious.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:25:53 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
At 12:34 AM 7/29/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
)abd wrote:
))Just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of
))religious schools. Rather, I'm in favor of allowing *all* private
))schools a state reimbursement equal to what the school saves the state
))by educating a child, provided that the private school meets state
))requirements as equitably determined. As long as it meets the state
))requirements, the school could teach whatever else *additionally* it
))wished, provided that this additional teaching were not contrary to
))law. Religion could be taught in such a school. But, given the economic
))structure described, it would not be correct to say that the state was
))funding religious education, for the expense of that would be privately
))obtained.
)
)I don't accept this argument. This seems to me to have precisely the same
)effect as direct sponsorship of religious schools by the state. The only
)difference is the irrelevant (in my view) route that the money takes.
Direct sponsorship of schools by the state would generally imply that the
state establishes the schools or pays the full cost of such establishment,
or otherwise takes a hand in their creation and organization. Further,
effect is distinct from means. Some means to reach a certain effect may be
unlawful, other means may be lawful.
Mr.Farrell blurs the distinction between treating all private schools
equally, regardless of religious affiliation or lack of same, and the state
setting up religious schools. In the extreme, the state might, for example,
create a religious school according to the religion of the majority (or
even some minority that happens to enjoy a political advantage, by hook or
by crook, perhaps Republican schools .... :-). Or it could set formulae for
determining when a private school was created, perhaps according to the
numbers of persons in the community identifying with the religion or
philosophy; all this would probably violate the establishment clause. The
state should not be in the business of creating religious schools.
However, *any* private school that can meet the educational requirements of
the state could equitably receive a reimbursement equal to or less than the
cost saved by the state, without there being thereby any state sponsorship
of a particular religion. Yes, this might make it easier for some to found
and operate religious schools, but it would not, in itself, favor religious
schools over non-religious ones. I think it would meet the constitutional
tests.
And I think that the opposition to it will not come on constitutional
grounds; rather, the main opposition will come from those with vested
interests in the status quo. In addition, there will be opposition from
those who are actively hostile to religion, or to some forms of religion,
or, as we are seeing here, to an ideological or methodological movement
claimed to be a religion by its opponents.(I'll grant that Anthroposophy
resembles a religion in some ways or for some people; however, as the
amicus brief filed by the Anthroposophical Society well stated, it also
fails to meet certain critical aspects of the definition of religion, and
in particular, those aspects which are of greatest constitutional concern.
That some anthroposophists, i.e., persons self-identifying as such, take
the teachings of Rudolph Steiner in a dogmatic way does not thereby make
them dogma in the sense of dogma promoted by a coherent organized structure.
As I have elsewhere noted, there remain issues of fact in the PLANS
lawsuit. But my writing here is not in promotion of Waldorf education, and
certainly not of anthroposophy. Rather, it is of choice in education, for I
expect that increased choice, in this case, will bring with it an increase
in quality, in both public and private schools. As I have noted, a
well-designed voucher system should, in the long run, *increase* the
funding available to public schools.
The only exception to this has to do with *existing* private school
students. As these students are at present being educated at no cost to the
state, providing a voucher to them will involve an increase in state
expenditure in the amount of the vouchers.
However, consider this thought experiment. Arguments have been raised here
which, if applied consistently, would really require the outlawing of
private education, at least through the high school level. Private
education, it is argued, leads to harmful social consequences, due to, say,
religious segregation. Or perhaps sexual segregation. The only way to
remedy this, with regard to the existing situation, would be to require
that all students be educated in public schools. And, naturally, this would
be at public expense....
Suppose such laws were passed. (They would not be, in my opinion,
unconstitutional.) Now, suppose that there is a consideration of a return
to school diversity and multiplicity by once again allowing private schools
to be created and operated. In this case, we'd see the real financial
situation. Each pupil going to a private school would, on average, result
in a cost savings to the state. No increased state expenditure at all would
be required.
If the voucher system were as I proposed, the argument could not be raised
*at all* that issuing vouchers would in some way deprive public schools of
funding. It is only the context of the present inequitable situation that
can make it appear so.
One possible way to deal with the existing situation would be to phase in
such vouchers. My guess is that the numbers of private school students
would, in fact, increase slowly, but the accumulated increase would be
dramatic. Once again, if the voucher amount were sufficiently below the
incremental per-pupil cost, perhaps starting out at a pretty small level,
there might well be no funding loss at all to public schools. The program
could indeed be designed to make it so.
))Unless somehow the school manages to meet state requirements
))at the reduced rate that would be reimbursed, with something left over.
))But, as I wrote before, in this case it would have *earned* those extra
))funds, by educating more efficiently. I don't think it very likely.
))
))Note that this system would, by definition, not deprive public schools
))of needed funding, for any new private school's reimbursement.
)
)This is a statement with no supporting argument or evidence. I think you
)would have to justify the argument that removing money from the system
)does not deprive public schools of needed funds.
The phased-in system, by setting the reimbursement level appropriately,
could specifically insure that no funding loss in excess of the reduced
expense occurred as a result of vouchers. In other words, there would be no
"money removed from the system." The voucher level would be set at
precisely the level such that reimbursements to private schools would not
exceed the savings to the public school system produced by *increased*
private school enrollment. For practical reasons, this would mean that the
initial reimbursement level would probably be quite low.
))However,
))there is a transition problem, which I won't address. If such a system
))were implemented now, students at *existing* private schools would
))start to get what they have, all along, been saving the state. This is
))a hidden tax on private education. Anyway, the immediate effect would
))be a drain on the treasury; however, equity does call for something
))like this.
)
)I don't believe this is a hidden tax. It is an additional cost which you
)and others have chosen to bear for whatever reason.
No, I have not paid any such cost. I have never had a child enrolled in a
private school. I might, in the future, with my sixth child.
Perhaps it is not a "hidden tax" merely because Mr. Farrell says so. This
is the situation: all taxpayers pay into the general fund, and, in
addition, persons pay, directly or indirectly, property taxes which support
schools more directly. These tax funds are then used to pay all educational
expenses for persons who choose to put their children in public schools,
but, generally, nothing for those who choose to educate their children at
home or in private schools. In the latter two situations, the parents must
bear the full costs, which are considerable. Because each student enrolled
in a private school does reduce enrollment in public schools, by making
this choice, parents are relieving the state of a certain cost burden, at
substantial personal expense. (In the case of home schooling, the bulk of
the expense is in-kind, i.e., labor provided.) Yet these parents still pay
the full burden of taxes, as paid by everyone else. That portion of the
texes they pay that would come back them in educational benefit for their
children, does not come back to them, not in total (which may be proper)
but not even in part (which is inequitable, I'm arguing). This is why I
call it a hidden tax. Yes, it may be a tax that is voluntarily paid, by
choosing to education children outside the public school system. Mr Farrell
seems to think that if an expense is voluntary, it is not a tax. Yet many
taxes are based on voluntary decisions....
In the voucher system I envision, there would *still* be an increased cost,
quite likely, for educating one's children outside the public system. But
that cost would be reduced, eventually to a level such that private
education could be within the reach of many people regardless of income level.
) You could obtain the additional features that you desire through
) extracurricular activities such as Sunday Schools for Christians, and
) whatever the equivalents are called for other religions.
Mr. Farrell insists on imagining that I'm proposing some specific
accommodation to religion. I'm not. The voucher system I am proposing would
not *mention* religion, and it would neither encourage nor discourage
religious programs. It would be designed to facilitate educational choice,
and, yes, religious schools might be a part of that choice. But so would
non-religious schools. And the system as proposed (except possibly for the
transitional problem, and not even that if phased in properly) would not
harm public schools, except if the public schools were so bad that nearly
all students flee them. That may happen in some places.... but I would
expect that to be rare.
) One might also consider the position of taxpayers who are infertile.
) Should they be provided with vouchers they can use for some other purpose
) since they are being taxed to provide education for children they can
) never have.
No, they should not. Mr. Farrell, I'd assume, has heard the arguments about
this. The state provides free public education for public policy reasons,
it is considered to benefit all to have an educated next generation. The
benefit in the case of a childless couple could be rather obvious: that
couple may well be depending on the health of the economy for their
retirement, both privately and publicly. Subsidizing education does, in
fact, benefit them.
The question here is not whether or not education should be subsidized at
taxpayer expense, but *how* this education is provided. I'm proposing that
the present firewalled public and private school system be replaced by a
hybrid system, allowing private schools to provide education if they can
meet the same positive educational requirements as public schools; in
addition, they would have to meet certain negative requirements; for
example, not hiring pedophiles.... Not teaching religion, per se, would not
be one of those requirements. Note, however, that the public school
requirements might, for example, include teaching the theory of evolution
at an appropriate age, as well as the fact that this theory is accepted by
the vast majority of biologists. (That's a fact, not a religious belief.) A
private school would be free to teach, *in addition*, "creationism," or
whatever nonsense they believe, provided that the students can pass a test
regarding the theory of evolution. If the school doesn't want to do that,
they are still free, but, here I'd argue that the state should not allow
vouchers to be used by such a school....
(In a properly designed test, a question might be something like,
"According to the theory of evolution, what is the source of the diversity
of life?" The question would *not* be "What is the source of the diversity
of life?")
The system as I described it, being religiously neutral, does meet, I
believe, the constitutional requirements in a way that public sponsorship
of religious schools would not. Specifically, the system is not even
conceived to be in support of religious schools, per se; it just happens
that religious schools, being private schools, might benefit from it, but
the majority of schools benefited, I'd predict, would not be religious.
Rather, they would be founded on all sorts of educational principles and
systems, Montessori, Waldorf, Enke (sp?), secular humanist, Walden, etc.,
etc. Some might be quite similar to public schools as to curriculum, some
would not (but to receive voucher support, all would necessarily meet
certain educational goals.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:33:20 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in
Lawsuit
At 01:50 PM 7/29/2004, Gideon Mills (Deborah) wrote:
)"and that
)membership in
) ) the Anthroposophical Society is open to followers of all faiths."
)
)When I was young we were members of a Unitarian Church. It too prided
)itself on being open to people of all faiths and I vividly recall members
)of that church describing themselves as Jewish, Catholic, agnostic and
)atheist. It was there that I learned about Channukah, for example,
)because it was celebrated in that Church each year along with
)Christmas. Upon visiting other Unitarian churches I learned that each has
)its own "feel" and practicing doctrine and that some of their members
)refer to themselves as "Unitarian" only. Does this mean that Unitarianism
)is not a religion?
Not necessarily. There is a complex of tests. For one thing, I think there
is a doctrinal statement on which all Unitarians supposedly agree. There is
a coherent organization that explicitly describes itself as religious.
There are churches, regular and substantial organized ritual, etc.
To describe a blessing said at mealtime as equivalent to a religious
service is a bit of a stretch....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:37:12 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re:
At 02:22 PM 7/29/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Charlie Frey, you wrote,
)
))Did you all know that there are many people in Waldorf who are
))vehemently against Waldorf charter schools?
)
)Yes, the wiser people, in my opinion. Also the charters are unwelcome
)competition. When I visited the Novato Charter School (Waldorf), I learned
)that parents had bought a bus that brought kids every day from another
)town, passing two private Waldorf schools on the way!
)
)Several years ago Lamb editorialized in Threefold Review (now defunct)
)against public funding of Waldorf.
Steiner himself probably would have been against public funding of Waldorf
Schools, because he knew that with funding came a level of control.
However, note the implication: a school that seeks public funding is acting
contrary to the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.... and thus has left (if it
existed) the Anthroposophical Fold.
However, if Anthroposophy is *not* a religion, as claimed by
Anthroposophists -- at least by the most official A. organization in the
U.S. -- then individuals are free to follow whatever they think best
without thereby becoming "heretics."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
P.P.S.
Qualms with translation:
"...., ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen"
this is nitpicking I know but frequently the english
anthroposophical lingo "spiritually creative"
irritates me. I would translate schaffende in this
context as "productive" or "originating"....in English
"creative" implies artistic/arty in a way which I
don't sense the German schaffen(d) doing. Again, I
recognize that creative is valid I just tend to get
annoyed....furthermore, as you well know rGeist is a
subtle word, especially in any connection to German
philosophy. In English, I believe that using the terms
"spirit" and "spiritual" can lead to confusion when
they are synonimous with "spectre" or "ghost", or that
panoply. In my reading, the intent in the German leans
closer to rGeist as the Mind
"ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen" thus could
equally be considered "is the most
mentally(spiritually) productive race"
this has a whole different ring than "is the most
spiritually creative race"
Just thought I'd give the readers here a taste of the
issues surrounding translations from German
Chris
--- waldorf-critics topica.com wrote:
) -- Topica Digest --
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By momof2gals mindspring.com
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) Wandin Springs
) By jaquesdm msn.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Steiner on skin color and race
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By awaldenpond shaw.ca
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By feetapparel hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
)
------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:39:25 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical
) Society's brief
)
)
)
)
) "Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their
) intention to
) introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to
) which they hope
) to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court.
) While the
) Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the
) kind of circus of
) hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that
) plaintiff is
) apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly
) interested that such
) "evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the
) entity best
) situated to put it in accurate perspective."
)
) The judge may be irritated by this haughty language,
) and the peculiar notion
) that introducing "documents" in a court case is
) somehow amiss. A "circus." A
) hundred documents, Dan? Of all the nerve :)
)
) The judge will probably not realize, though, how
) peculiarly anthroposophic
) this seeming allergy to documented evidence is.
) Diana
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:50:17 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Walden said:
)
) )I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views
) while chatting with their
) )peers... until I realize we actually *share* some
) views and they actually
) )*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never
) even comfortable seeing
) )fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along
) to the protest, knowing
) )the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for
) the 6 o'clock news. So...
)
)
) I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs
) too.
)
) Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the
) indoctrination my child
) *hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a
) storm was coming on, the
) sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting,
) dramatic cloud
) formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks
) like Judgment Day out
) there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?"
) I smile to myself, I've
) done a *few* things right in parenting :)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:55:20 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
)
)
) And I *don't* offer to drive him to church now and
) then. :)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:06:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
) From: momof2gals mindspring.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Just couldn't resist jumping in here with an
) anecdote that is relevant.
)
) Last spring (I hope my timing is correct on this
) .... I may be in error her! (g)) a friend of mine
) decided one weekend morning to take his five year
) old son on a day trip to Washington D.C.'s
) Smithsonian museum. (Like me, they live in a suburb
) of Baltimore.) As the father-son pair got off the
) Metro, they found themselves in the midst of a huge
) crowd of mostly women, who had come to the nation's
) capital that day to let the Bush administration know
) they supported abortion rights. My friend took his
) son's hand to lead him away from the crowd and
) toward the natural science museum (dinosaurs were
) the goal!) when a woman waving a big sign approached
) them.
) "Wow, it's great to see a father bringing his son to
) the protest to stand up for a woman's right to
) choose!" she said, smiling broadly.
) "Well, actually, ma'am, I brought my son here to
) stand up for his right to see a stegosaurus," he
) said.
) We laughed about this encounter later, but both of
) us agreed there was something disturbing not just
) about the woman's assumptions (you know what they
) say about assuming? (BWG)), but also about the many
) people who *do* bring and I would contend, use,
) their children in protests of any kind. I am equally
) ill at ease when I see kids wielding "Choose Life"
) signs from their strollers as I am kids in backpacks
) with "Pro Child, Pro Family, Pro Choice" bumper
) stickers adorning the child carriers.
) Though it is certainly our job as parents to guide
) our children and teach them what we think is
) important in the world, I think taking really young
) kids (kids too young to really form their own
) opinions) to these kinds of things is just not a
) great idea.
) Lisa
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
) Sent: Aug 2, 2004 10:50 AM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
I was pleased to see a few responses to the article I posted from Richard
Dawkins. However nobody addressed the fundamental issue, and presumably
there are people posting here who do disagree with Dawkins on this issue of
assuming children will take up the religion of their families and culture.
Are there any comments?
See you, Peter
It's a Judeo-Christian issue. I don't know of any traditional First Nations people who think their children will not "take up" their Nation's beliefs/culture; it's not compartmentalized as it appears to be within mainstream religions. Traditional FN people do not proselytize and, in fact, generally do not want those outside of their Nation knowing that Nation's beliefs much less "practicing" them. That is why New Agers (and around here they are synonymous with the anthrops) are so roundly disliked by traditional FN people. There are hundreds of web sites set up strictly for the purpose of exposing New Agers because of the serious harm they do. This is a very different perspective as compared with the Christian sects.
Deborah
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
. Does this mean that Unitarianism
)is not a religion?
Not necessarily. There is a complex of tests. For one thing, I think there
is a doctrinal statement on which all Unitarians supposedly agree.
I know that Unitarianism is a religion. I was simply attempting to compare it with how anthrops view their religion, even though some of them deny that anthroposophy is a religion. As I remember Unitarians have a basic set of tenets that all their churches ascribe to, but each church is controlled by its particular membership and not by a "mother" church. That actually seems to be far more liberal than what Waldorf schools are allowed to do if their administrators want to be classified as official Waldorf schools.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:07:41 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
At 01:10 AM 8/2/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Some rich language in the Anthroposophical Society's amicus curiae brief:
)
)"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to introduce
)more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope to define or
)reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the Society has no wish for
)the Court to engage in the kind of circus of hypotheses, interpretations
)and innuendoes that plaintiff is apparently eager to stage, it is
)profoundly interested that such "evidence" be seen in the light of the
)views of the entity best situated to put it in accurate perspective.
)
)Ah, yes, as it says in the disclaimers, no one who hasn't had
)Anthroposophical training is qualified to criticize Anthroposophy.
)
)"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical farrago that
)plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is not the kind of
)business that the Court should be about."
)
)Hmm, telling a federal court that they have no business deciding a
)church/state issue. The judge will love that.
I made a habit of reading Supreme Court decisions for a long time. They
used to be quite good. Of late, some have been a bit strained, apparently
to produce desired outcomes.... "This decision is not to be used as a
precedent." Hmm... wonder why?
The judge will be quite familiar with the arguments in the amicus brief,
and it is speaking his language. If Mr. Dugan is amused, perhaps he should
seek better legal counsel for PLANS, if he has any choice about it.
Note that the amicus did not at all state that the federal court had "no
business deciding a church/state issue." Rather, it noted the traditional
reserve of the courts about deciding matters which are, by the
establishment clause, outside the jurisdiction of the court. Deciding
whether or not
Anthroposophy, per se, is a religion is *quite properly* claimed in the
amicus brief to be an exercise for the court to avoid. Rather, the court
should decide the matter before it, which is whether or not the defendants
violated the consititution. "Anthroposophy is a religion" is not really an
issue before the court. A more relevant question would be whether or not
the schools substantially deviated from what is constitutionally required
of them, and it is not necessary to determine the general condition of
Anthroposophy in order to do that. The Society clearly had good counsel, I
was impressed.
In particular, since the schools, if I am correct, deny that they are
teaching Anthroposophy, and the immediate issue before the court is a
motion for summary judgement, the religious status of Anthroposophy would
seem to be irrelevant, and so would the majority of the assertions made in
the plaintiff's brief. Even if every teacher in the schoold were declared
Anthroposophistd, and they all thought of Anthroposophy as a religion --
and they aren't and don't -- this would not be enough, the plaintiff will
have to show that this *substantially* affected their behavior in ways
prohibited by the constitution. A person might, for example, choose one out
of many lawful ways of educating based on his personal religious beliefs;
showing that the choice was influenced by the religion would not, per se,
establish that the school is teaching religion.... Some leakage of
"anthroposophical beliefs" into the curriculum, as actually taught,
likewise would not be sufficient; rather it would have to be systematic and
constitutionally pernicious. These are matters of fact and they will
require a trial. Plaintiffs are wasting the time of the court with a motion
for summary judgement. Perhaps they know they are going to lose and wish to
draw it out for publicity reasons. Or perhaps they really believe that what
they have written is legally cogent. (The plaintiff's briefs that I read
seemed to be written for a popular audience, not for an audience of legally
sophisticated judges.... Not the way to write, I'd think, if you care about
prevailing in federal court, and especially on prevailing in a motion for
summary judgement, which requires the greatest strictness of satisfying
every possible objection.)
Of course, I also thought that a certain case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 2000 was open and shut, based on law and precedent. I was, indeed,
unprepared for how far the Court majority would deviate from not only the
Constitution itself but also well-established precedent and its own
principles. Essentially, the majority seems to have relied on its own
nearly absolute authority to determine what is and what is not
constitutional, well into the territory of the arbitrary, restrained only
by the very abstract threat of impeachment.... Sad. And very, very dangerous.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective.
"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical farrago
that plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is not the
kind of business that the Court should be about."
In the first paragraph it sounds as if they are implying that the Court is incapable of reading the documents. I don't know any attorney who would not take that as in insult and judges are even more prone to such slights. The word "define" in the first paragraph and the word "farrago" are not only incongruous, but can be characterized as antonyms.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on the races of mankind
Mike Helsher (mhelsher ne.rr.com) wrote:
Articulate personal definitions, and answers to these questions should be
essential, and included in any properly documented review of alleged racism
in Anthroposophy.
"Racism" is a conclusory word, which is why I rarely use it anymore, i.e. using it does not explain anything. My desk dictionary's straightforward definition of "racism" is "a belief that one's own race is superior." Steiner believed in the concept of "race" and he believed that his "race" is superior. Moral judgments and the historical record aside, does that not make him a racist?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
Child sexual abuse is, in my view, quite harmful, but is it as harmful
as,
for example, murder of a child?
That depends upon who you ask. For those survivors of child sexual use - I don't use "abuse" because there is nothing okay about the sexual "use" of children and therefore the "ab" prefix is inappropriate - who wind up repeatedly trying to die, being directly murdered may appear preferable. I have known many survivors of child sexual use, including my sister and my closest friend.
There is now considerable evidence that the sexual use of a child causes permanent changes in the brain. (In addition, the general consensus within the mental health community is that those who sexually children cannot be rehabilitated. That is one reason that chemical intervention is sometimes used.) My most serious confrontations with the local Waldorf community has been over this very issue. We come from child-centered cultures and so it is particularly horrifying to us when adults appear to have no sense of boundaries when it comes to children. My understanding of the history of the local formation of this Waldorf community is that many if not all of the initial members came from the Rainbow Family, which is a group with a well-known problem of sexual use of children. I suspect it is that which has been carried over into this particular Waldorf community, but I could be wrong. I do know that there have been attempts at the Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School to cover up at least
one such incident.
I have wondered if their karmic and/or reincarnation beliefs coupled with their belief that they are better than everyone else (and thus can ignore taboos, etc.)that partially explains their attitudes.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:33:02 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)However, *any* private school that can meet the educational requirements of
)the state could equitably receive a reimbursement equal to or less than the
)cost saved by the state, without there being thereby any state sponsorship
)of a particular religion. Yes, this might make it easier for some to found
)and operate religious schools, but it would not, in itself, favor religious
)schools over non-religious ones. I think it would meet the constitutional
)tests.
This is the pretty close to the situation in Australia, although there is no
voucher system. Instead we have an imperfect system which varies fgrom state
to state but which is supposedly based on some socio-economic measures
associated with the enrolment at the school.
I have no opinion about US constitutional issues. I admit your constitution
and its interpretation is a source of unceasing wonder to me.
)However, consider this thought experiment. Arguments have been raised here
)which, if applied consistently, would really require the outlawing of
)private education, at least through the high school level. Private
)education, it is argued, leads to harmful social consequences, due to, say,
)religious segregation. Or perhaps sexual segregation. The only way to
)remedy this, with regard to the existing situation, would be to require
)that all students be educated in public schools. And, naturally, this would
)be at public expense....
This does not follow. One could regulate private schools so that these
alleged sources of harm were removed.
)If the voucher system were as I proposed, the argument could not be raised
)*at all* that issuing vouchers would in some way deprive public schools of
)funding. It is only the context of the present inequitable situation that
)can make it appear so.
Of course I can raise the argument. The details here matter. You have raise
elsewhere the time scales associated with this process as one issue. Another
issue is the geographical boundaries which are used for funding puproses.
For example if relatively localised geographical regions were used for the
allocations of funds, time variations in the numbers of people using
vouchers for private schools could lead to local public schools becoming
unviable.
)
)One possible way to deal with the existing situation would be to phase in
)such vouchers. My guess is that the numbers of private school students
)would, in fact, increase slowly, but the accumulated increase would be
)dramatic. Once again, if the voucher amount were sufficiently below the
)incremental per-pupil cost, perhaps starting out at a pretty small level,
)there might well be no funding loss at all to public schools. The program
)could indeed be designed to make it so.
)
)))Unless somehow the school manages to meet state requirements
)))at the reduced rate that would be reimbursed, with something left over.
)))But, as I wrote before, in this case it would have *earned* those extra
)))funds, by educating more efficiently. I don't think it very likely.
)))
)))Note that this system would, by definition, not deprive public schools
)))of needed funding, for any new private school's reimbursement.
))
))This is a statement with no supporting argument or evidence. I think you
))would have to justify the argument that removing money from the system
))does not deprive public schools of needed funds.
)
)The phased-in system, by setting the reimbursement level appropriately,
)could specifically insure that no funding loss in excess of the reduced
)expense occurred as a result of vouchers. In other words, there would be no
)"money removed from the system." The voucher level would be set at
)precisely the level such that reimbursements to private schools would not
)exceed the savings to the public school system produced by *increased*
)private school enrollment. For practical reasons, this would mean that the
)initial reimbursement level would probably be quite low.
)
)
)Mr. Farrell insists on imagining that I'm proposing some specific
)accommodation to religion.
I cannot reconcile this with the vast bulk of your postings to this site. It
is absolutely clear that your desire is some additional spirituality in the
schooling.
I'm not. The voucher system I am
)proposing would not *mention* religion,
It doesn't need to. You've mentioned it enough already.
and it would neither
)encourage nor discourage religious programs.
Of course it would encourage religious programs. I don't believe you can be
serious putting this argument forward. It is plainly nonsense.
It would be designed to
)facilitate educational choice, and, yes, religious schools might be a part
)of that choice. But so would non-religious schools. And the system as
)proposed (except possibly for the transitional problem, and not even that
)if phased in properly) would not harm public schools, except if the public
)schools were so bad that nearly all students flee them. That may happen in
)some places.... but I would expect that to be rare.
)
)) One might also consider the position of taxpayers who are infertile.
))Should they be provided with vouchers they can use for some other purpose
))since they are being taxed to provide education for children they can
))never have.
)
)No, they should not. Mr. Farrell, I'd assume, has heard the arguments about
)this. The state provides free public education for public policy reasons,
)it is considered to benefit all to have an educated next generation. The
)benefit in the case of a childless couple could be rather obvious: that
)couple may well be depending on the health of the economy for their
)retirement, both privately and publicly. Subsidizing education does, in
)fact, benefit them.
Exactly. And this is exactly the reason that you should pay additional costs
for the benefits that you think will accrue from a private education.
)
)The question here is not whether or not education should be subsidized at
)taxpayer expense, but *how* this education is provided. I'm proposing that
)the present firewalled public and private school system be replaced by a
)hybrid system, allowing private schools to provide education if they can
)meet the same positive educational requirements as public schools; in
)addition, they would have to meet certain negative requirements; for
)example, not hiring pedophiles.... Not teaching religion, per se, would not
)be one of those requirements. Note, however, that the public school
)requirements might, for example, include teaching the theory of evolution
)at an appropriate age, as well as the fact that this theory is accepted by
)the vast majority of biologists. (That's a fact, not a religious belief.) A
)private school would be free to teach, *in addition*, "creationism," or
)whatever nonsense they believe, provided that the students can pass a test
)regarding the theory of evolution. If the school doesn't want to do that,
)they are still free, but, here I'd argue that the state should not allow
)vouchers to be used by such a school....
I have serious reservations about this. These researvations are similar to
the ones I have with respect to state intervention in cases where the
religious belief of parents interferes with medical treatment for children.
)
)(In a properly designed test, a question might be something like,
)"According to the theory of evolution, what is the source of the diversity
)of life?" The question would *not* be "What is the source of the diversity
)of life?")
)
)The system as I described it, being religiously neutral, does meet, I
)believe, the constitutional requirements in a way that public sponsorship
)of religious schools would not. Specifically, the system is not even
)conceived to be in support of religious schools, per se; it just happens
)that religious schools, being private schools, might benefit from it, but
)the majority of schools benefited, I'd predict, would not be religious.
)Rather, they would be founded on all sorts of educational principles and
)systems, Montessori, Waldorf, Enke (sp?), secular humanist, Walden, etc.,
)etc. Some might be quite similar to public schools as to curriculum, some
)would not (but to receive voucher support, all would necessarily meet
)certain educational goals.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this belief and the evidence from
other countries indicates otherwise.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
10,000 children need sponsors – change a life:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9294008;9739733;y?http://www.worldvision.com.au/childsponsorship/search/child_search.asp?om=1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:40:31 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Gideon Mills wrote:
)It's a Judeo-Christian issue. I don't know of any traditional First
Nations people who think their children will not "take up" their Nation's
beliefs/culture; it's not compartmentalized as it appears to be within
mainstream religions.
Do First Nation children take up their tradional religions and beliefs? Do
statistics exist?
I don't think that it is a Judeo-Christian issue although it may well have
started there. The notion of freedom of religion is wide spread but not
universally accepted. Note the legal sanctions against apostates in some
muslim countries and the suppression of religious beliefs in communist
countries.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Love Movies? You'll love HomeScreen. Rental DVDs - no late fees! Go to:
http://www.ninemsn.homescreen.com.au/account/freetrial/?.promo=9msn_hotmail_
tagline
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:52:41 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
I responded earlier to Abd's comment
Abd: "No, they should not. Mr. Farrell, I'd assume, has heard the arguments
about
this. The state provides free public education for public policy reasons,
it is considered to benefit all to have an educated next generation. The
benefit in the case of a childless couple could be rather obvious: that
couple may well be depending on the health of the economy for their
retirement, both privately and publicly. Subsidizing education does, in
fact, benefit them. "
Me: Exactly. And this is exactly the reason that you should pay additional
costs
for the benefits that you think will accrue from a private education.
I meant to add that this additional expense that you wish to incur should
not relieve you from the responsibility to support public education through
taxation, since you benefit from this in the same way a childless person
does, regardless of how you choose to educate your own children.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Love Movies? You'll love HomeScreen. Rental DVDs - no late fees! Go to:
http://www.ninemsn.homescreen.com.au/account/freetrial/?.promo=9msn_hotmail_
tagline
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:14:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
abd wrote (last week; still catching up):
)I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of religious schools. Rather, I'm
)in favor of allowing *all* private schools a state reimbursement equal to
)what the school saves the state by educating a child, (snip explanation of
why it's supposedly ok if religion is part of this school)
)But, given the economic structure described, it would not be correct to
)say that the state was funding religious education, for the expense of
)that would be privately obtained.
This is word games. "Sponsoring" = "reimbursing" = "funding." I see this
same argument continues and is embellished in later posts. These are
synonyms for "paying for it." It doesn't matter who "organized" or
"established" the religious school, as you later propose; the person
*paying* obviously has the right to organize or establish whatever they want
and will use it. Once you've established that the state has that right, the
state will certainly use it to set up religious schools. This is not
far-fetched as Abd would have us believe; this would happen tomorrow, in
some locales (Utah comes to mind), if the church/state principle
disappeared. You want us to look distractedly in another direction for a
moment or two while the money flies around, and maybe we won't notice where
it started out and where it ended up. Actually, I've now at least skimmed
your later posts and this seems to about sum it up.
)provided that the private school meets state requirements as equitably
)determined.
It was equitably determined a long time ago that religious schools *don't*
meet state requirements.
)As long as it meets the state requirements, the school could teach whatever
)else *additionally* it wished, provided that this additional teaching were
)not contrary to law. Religion could be taught in such a school.
Teaching religion in the public setting *is* contrary to law here, so your
above sentence is nonsensical.
)However, there is a transition problem, which I won't address. If such a
)system were implemented now, students at *existing* private schools would
)start to get what they have, all along, been saving the state. This is
)a hidden tax on private education.
It's a "hidden tax" only if the state is failing to provide you with
something they owe you for your tax money and are thus, unfairly, forcing
you to pay for it yourself. We've established that this is not the case with
religious education.
I haven't seen those arguments rebutted or even acknowledged - you are
silent on all arguments regarding the positive reasons tax money in the US
does not fund religious activities, the protections afforded even, in fact
particularly, to religious minorities, by the positive establishment of
neutrality. It is actually rather disappointing that these arguments are
never taken on. There *are* substantive arguments against separation of
church and state. I'd like to rebut them too :) Thinking of the Philip
Jenkins quotes Sharon posted, and his perspective of keeping religious life
healthy, it might even be a bad sign for a society's religious life if few
dare or care to make serious, substantive arguments for why religion should
have an unrestrained role in public life. All this stealth can't be healthy.
Unfortunately, the pro-religious funding arguments are generally not
serious; though they may be complex, like Abd's, they seem generally merely
opportunistic. First they just try to sneak around the law and hope no one
will notice a few religious activities here and there in public schools
(stealth); then when challenged they whine that they want the money and
don't see why they shouldn't get it. Abd is one in a long line just on this
list to whine that it is a bummer that religious schools can't have tax
money. I admit his schemes for routing the money through various complicated
channels, so that presumably few notice where it started and where it ended
up, and will then hopefully not notice the state is now funding religion,
are very clever.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:15:11 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)However, consider this thought experiment. Arguments have been raised here
)which, if applied consistently, would really require the outlawing of
)private education, at least through the high school level. Private
)education, it is argued, leads to harmful social consequences, due to, say,
)religious segregation. Or perhaps sexual segregation.
I presume this relates to Sharon's dislike of religion-segregated schools,
but Sharon, actually, is an outspoken advocate of religious freedom and has
never argued for religious schools to be outlawed. How do you miss the point
so persistently? We argue for them to be NOT TAX-SUPPORTED.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:48:36 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
)Note that the amicus did not at all state that the federal court had "no
)business deciding a church/state issue." Rather, it noted the traditional
)reserve of the courts about deciding matters which are, by the
)establishment clause, outside the jurisdiction of the court. Deciding
)whether or not Anthroposophy, per se, is a religion is *quite properly*
)claimed in the amicus brief to be an exercise for the court to avoid.
Are you a lawyer, Abd? You sure have a lot to say, and quite confidently,
about what it will be proper for the court to do or not do, and I would
remind you that you know little or nothing about what evidence of any of
this that PLANS may plan to present.
I'm not a lawyer either but I don't think, actually, that the court takes it
up on itself to decide "whether anthroposophy is a religion." It may on the
other hand decide whether there is a general consensus among scholars of
religion, for instance, about whether anthroposophy is a religion. The judge
is not likely a scholar of religion himself and naturally relies on expert
testimony. Given your argumentation, courts could rarely decide anything.
You pontificate:
)In particular, since the schools, if I am correct, deny that they are
)teaching Anthroposophy, and the immediate issue before the court is a
)motion for summary judgement, the religious status of Anthroposophy would
)seem to be irrelevant, and so would the majority of the assertions made in
)the plaintiff's brief. Even if every teacher in the schoold were declared
)Anthroposophistd, and they all thought of Anthroposophy as a religion --
)and they aren't and don't -- this would not be enough, the plaintiff will
)have to show that this *substantially* affected their behavior in ways
)prohibited by the constitution. A person might, for example, choose one out
)of many lawful ways of educating based on his personal religious beliefs;
)showing that the choice was influenced by the religion would not, per se,
)establish that the school is teaching religion.... Some leakage of
)"anthroposophical beliefs" into the curriculum, as actually taught,
)likewise would not be sufficient; rather it would have to be systematic and
)constitutionally pernicious.
Frankly, you haven't a clue, as far as we know here, considering that you
remain silent on the question of whether you have yet managed to observe
even one classroom, about what goes on in those classrooms, and you
certainly have no idea what evidence PLANS may present regarding whether
anthroposophical beliefs are "systematically" present in the schools in
question.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:42:42 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
Chris, when quoting a digest, please:
1) change the subject field to the subject of the thread, and
2) delete all text not relevant to your comments.
Posting copies of digests clogs our archives with repetitions.
If you're going to participate in the dialogue, you will find it much
more convenient to change your subscription to individual messages.
Thanks, Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:13:14 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, you wrote:
)That some anthroposophists, i.e., persons self-identifying as such,
)take the teachings of Rudolph Steiner in a dogmatic way does not
)thereby make them dogma in the sense of dogma promoted by a coherent
)organized structure.
But that is exactly what Anthroposophy is and does. It's an organized
structure based on the belief that Steiner was able to receive
information from supernatural sources. It's stated that this
information can't be criticized unless you are a believer.
Supernatural sources are religious, and unquestionable tenets are
dogmas.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:50:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
DAN DUGAN
))Some rich language in the Anthroposophical Society's amicus curiae brief:
))
))"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
))introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they
))hope to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
))Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus
))of hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
))apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
))"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
))situated to put it in accurate perspective."
))
))Ah, yes, as it says in the disclaimers, no one who hasn't had
))Anthroposophical training is qualified to criticize Anthroposophy.
))
))"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical
))farrago that plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is
))not the kind of business that the Court should be about."
))
))Hmm, telling a federal court that they have no business deciding a
))church/state issue. The judge will love that.
ABD:
)The judge will be quite familiar with the arguments in the amicus
)brief, and it is speaking his language. If Mr. Dugan is amused,
)perhaps he should seek better legal counsel for PLANS, if he has any
)choice about it.
We're quite happy with our representation. Scott Kendall has won
everything he's argued so far, including at the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
)Note that the amicus did not at all state that the federal court had
)"no business deciding a church/state issue." Rather, it noted the
)traditional reserve of the courts about deciding matters which are,
)by the establishment clause, outside the jurisdiction of the court.
)Deciding whether or not
)Anthroposophy, per se, is a religion is *quite properly* claimed in
)the amicus brief to be an exercise for the court to avoid. Rather,
)the court should decide the matter before it, which is whether or
)not the defendants violated the consititution. "Anthroposophy is a
)religion" is not really an issue before the court. A more relevant
)question would be whether or not the schools substantially deviated
)from what is constitutionally required of them, and it is not
)necessary to determine the general condition of Anthroposophy in
)order to do that.
There's no violation in teaching Anthroposophical beliefs unless
Anthroposophy is a religion. It's logical to settle that issue first.
)The Society clearly had good counsel, I was impressed.
I was too. I'm sure the Anthroposophical Society has more money than
the public school districts we're suing.
)In particular, since the schools, if I am correct, deny that they
)are teaching Anthroposophy, and the immediate issue before the court
)is a motion for summary judgement, the religious status of
)Anthroposophy would seem to be irrelevant, and so would the majority
)of the assertions made in the plaintiff's brief. Even if every
)teacher in the school were declared Anthroposophists, and they all
)thought of Anthroposophy as a religion -- and they aren't and don't
)--
How do you know that? One of the teachers at Yuba River School told
Debra Snell that all of the teachers were Anthroposophists "except
Barbara, and Barbara is coming to Anthroposophy." Barbara didn't,
however. She moved over to the arts charter school, that has all the
good stuff -without Anthroposophy-, and most of her class transferred
to that school with her.
)this would not be enough, the plaintiff will have to show that this
)*substantially* affected their behavior in ways prohibited by the
)constitution. A person might, for example, choose one out of many
)lawful ways of educating based on his personal religious beliefs;
)showing that the choice was influenced by the religion would not,
)per se, establish that the school is teaching religion.... Some
)leakage of "anthroposophical beliefs" into the curriculum, as
)actually taught, likewise would not be sufficient; rather it would
)have to be systematic and constitutionally pernicious.
Right, and it is.
)These are matters of fact and they will require a trial. Plaintiffs
)are wasting the time of the court with a motion for summary
)judgement.
If the judge thought we were wasting his time with the motion, he
wouldn't have accepted it. If the judge thinks the case is clear
enough without a trial, he'll grant the motion to save the
government's expense, and we'll probably be off to the appeals court
again. If not, he'll set a new trial date. I'll be happy either way.
)Perhaps they know they are going to lose and wish to draw it out for
)publicity reasons.
We've been trying to get the case to trial for years! -That's- the
publicity we want, the evidence of religion in public Waldorf schools
out in public. Given that we have a good case, the schools' lawyers
have avoided a trial on the real issues by throwing up every possible
technical delay, hoping we'll run out of money or motivation. I think
they've run out of delaying tactics now, but one can never be sure.
)Or perhaps they really believe that what they have written is
)legally cogent. (The plaintiff's briefs that I read seemed to be
)written for a popular audience, not for an audience of legally
)sophisticated judges.... Not the way to write, I'd think, if you
)care about prevailing in federal court, and especially on prevailing
)in a motion for summary judgement, which requires the greatest
)strictness of satisfying every possible objection.)
It's in Judge Damrell's hands now, we'll see what he thinks!
)Of course, I also thought that a certain case before the U.S.
)Supreme Court in 2000 was open and shut, based on law and precedent.
)I was, indeed, unprepared for how far the Court majority would
)deviate from not only the Constitution itself but also
)well-established precedent and its own principles. Essentially, the
)majority seems to have relied on its own nearly absolute authority
)to determine what is and what is not constitutional, well into the
)territory of the arbitrary, restrained only by the very abstract
)threat of impeachment.... Sad. And very, very dangerous.
Amen.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:13:29 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: qualms with translations
Chris wrote:
Qualms with translation:
"...., ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen"
this is nitpicking I know but frequently the english
anthroposophical lingo "spiritually creative"
irritates me. I would translate schaffende in this
context as "productive" or "originating"....in English
"creative" implies artistic/arty in a way which I
don't sense the German schaffen(d) doing. Again, I
recognize that creative is valid I just tend to get
annoyed....furthermore, as you well know rGeist is a
subtle word, especially in any connection to German
philosophy. In English, I believe that using the terms
"spirit" and "spiritual" can lead to confusion when
they are synonimous with "spectre" or "ghost", or that
panoply. In my reading, the intent in the German leans
closer to rGeist as the Mind
"ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen" thus could
equally be considered "is the most
mentally(spiritually) productive race"
this has a whole different ring than "is the most
spiritually creative race"
Just thought I'd give the readers here a taste of the
issues surrounding translations from German
Chris, frequently translating texts myself I am perfectly aware of the
problems you cited. Yet, does this alter the implications of the
presentation Steiner offered in regard to various races? If so, would
you mind telling us how?
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:29:16 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 09:52 PM 8/3/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
)Me: Exactly. And this is exactly the reason that you should pay additional
)costs
)for the benefits that you think will accrue from a private education.
Exactly *my* point. I should pay any *additional* costs. Not the basic cost
that would be paid by the state anyway. I agree absolutely that my decision
to send my child to private school, if I can afford to do so at the time,
should not cause any increased expense to the public, nor should it in any
significant way deprive public school students of needed funding.
My point, however, is also that my decision should not *save* the state
substantial sums, effectively at my expense. What the present system does
is to set up a very substantial barrier to private education.
In another response to what I've written, Mr. Farrell claimed that my plan
is designed to favor religious education, on the grounds that I have
allegedly stated my desire for "spirituality" in my child's education. It
would be more accurate to say that what I desire is a certain kind of
sensitivity, a sensitivity to the whole child; this is not identical to
"spirituality." It happens that Waldorf education, of all the common forms,
seems to offer this, though not without problems, to be sure.
But that sensitivity is not tied to "religion," per se, and I'd, in fact,
prefer that religion not be taught in the school (except in a relatively
neutral way, as students study world religions). Waldorf's strong
anthroposophical focus, whether or not it rises to the legal definition of
"religion," is a problem for me, not a plus. Ironically, I find it somewhat
more likely that we'd be happy at a Waldorf charter school than at a pure
Waldorf School (and a pure Waldorf school, i.e., closely following -- one
might say "religiously" following -- Steiner's indications must necessarily
be private).
)I meant to add that this additional expense that you wish to incur should
)not relieve you from the responsibility to support public education
)through taxation, since you benefit from this in the same way a childless
)person does, regardless of how you choose to educate your own children.
And, of course, I agree. However, the public interest is in universal
education, not in whether or not that education is public or private.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:07:48 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 10:14 PM 8/3/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)This is word games. "Sponsoring" = "reimbursing" = "funding."
This is, indeed, a word game. The effort is being made to define two things
as equal by claiming that one word can be used to describe both.
State sponsorship of a religious activity is constitutionally prohibited.
State reimbursement of a religious entity for a non-religious expense
incurred by the entity in pursuit of a public benefit is not, as far as I
can tell, constitutionally prohibited. Reimbursement for an expense is
*not* sponsorship, except of the specific activity for which reimbursement
is being paid.
I have not noticed any declaration by U.S. courts that Mr. Bush's
"faith-based" initiative is unconstitutional. As I understand it, that
initiative seeks to include religious organizations among service providers
eligible for federal funding. Definitely, the proposal is ripe with
potential for abuse, but my opinion is that if it is eventually found to be
unconstitutional, it will be because of unconstitutional elements, perhaps
religious preferences, built into it or in how it actually operates, rather
than from the basic idea itself.
The kind of voucher system I've proposed would quite carefully avoid any
religious preferences, and my expectation is that most schools taking
advantage of it would, in fact, not be religious. What is new would only be
that religious schools would not be, per se, *excluded.*
) I see this
)same argument continues and is embellished in later posts. These are
)synonyms for "paying for it." It doesn't matter who "organized" or
)"established" the religious school, as you later propose; the person
)*paying* obviously has the right to organize or establish whatever they want
)and will use it.
Yes. And private schools, by definition, are privately organized. Not, as
in Ms. Winter's polemic, to do "whatever they want," but for certain lawful
purposes.
) Once you've established that the state has that right, the
)state will certainly use it to set up religious schools.
The state, under the U.S. Constitution, does not have the right to organize
a religious school. It may, however, in my opinion, provide for the
reimbursement of private organizations for non-religious activities
undertaken by those schools.
To give a non-educational example, a monastic order could decide to
establish a computer-programming service, using the labor of the monks.
Such an activity, if profit-making, could be taxable, but that is a
separate issue. Such a religious entity *could* bid on work for the state,
and, winning the bid, could perform the work and be paid for it. Is this
state sponsorship of religion? I have absolute confidence that, as
described, and absent some state preference for this organization over
other competing organizations, the U.S. courts would rule that it is not.
The obstacles to the voucher system I'm describing are political, not
constitutional.
(There might be other obstacles, such as labor laws, but those are not
constitutional issues that would apply to every case. Private organizations
doing contract work for the state might be required to satisfy equal
employment opportunity laws that might not apply if they are not receiving
state funding.)
) This is not
)far-fetched as Abd would have us believe; this would happen tomorrow, in
)some locales (Utah comes to mind), if the church/state principle
)disappeared.
I am in no way advocating that the separation of church and state be
abandoned. It is an important principle of American democracy. However, an
attempt is here being made to use this principle outside its proper
application.
As far as I know, the issue has not been fully tested, but if there are
references to case law, I'd be very interested.
The PLANS lawsuit is about something quite different. In that lawsuit,
PLANS alleges that a charter school is in fact a religious school. Charter
schools *are* state-sponsored. They do not merely receive some
reimbursement, they *are* public schools, even though they have their own
charter.
) You want us to look distractedly in another direction for a
)moment or two while the money flies around, and maybe we won't notice where
)it started out and where it ended up. Actually, I've now at least skimmed
)your later posts and this seems to about sum it up.
)
) )provided that the private school meets state requirements as equitably
) )determined.
)
)It was equitably determined a long time ago that religious schools *don't*
)meet state requirements.
Not on this issue, to my knowledge. If Ms. Winters cares to establish her
point, she is welcome to put references where her mouth is, and we could
look at the exact precedents.
Would the payment of the computer-programming company -- which might well
hold prayer services at the work site -- be unlawful on the grounds that it
was a religious organization? Would it be legally estopped from holding
religious services in its offices? If not, what, *constitutionally*, is
different about education?
If two persons, adherents to the same religion, form a partnership, is that
a "religious organization", with the government prohibited from contracting
with it to provide non-religious services?
I did not read the remainder of Ms. Winter's post. This does get tedious.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:32:35 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
At 10:48 PM 8/3/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)Are you a lawyer, Abd? You sure have a lot to say, and quite confidently,
)about what it will be proper for the court to do or not do, and I would
)remind you that you know little or nothing about what evidence of any of
)this that PLANS may plan to present.
This much I can tell. Diana is not a lawyer.
Do I have a law degree and the right to practice law in any state? No. Have
I studied law and represented myself in court? Yes.
Diana has *completely* missed the point, as the above and the remainder of
her post demonstrates. In a motion for Summary Judgement, the "evidence
that ... PLANS may plan to present" is completely irrelevant. The court
will issue the requested ruling solely on the basis that there is no
contested issue of fact. If there is a contested issue of fact that is
relevant to the outcome, issues of fact are reserved for trial.
I did not render an opinion -- or at least not a strong one -- about the
PLANS lawsuit itself, and I certainly consider it possible that PLANS will
prevail. However, the legal arguments presented in the motion for summary
judgement are a bad sign....
)I'm not a lawyer either but I don't think, actually, that the court takes it
)up on itself to decide "whether anthroposophy is a religion." It may on the
)other hand decide whether there is a general consensus among scholars of
)religion, for instance, about whether anthroposophy is a religion. The judge
)is not likely a scholar of religion himself and naturally relies on expert
)testimony. Given your argumentation, courts could rarely decide anything.
)
)You pontificate:
Gratuitously hostile language. Ms. Winters has complained that I often
avoid responding to her. It should not be a mystery.
)[...] Frankly, you haven't a clue, as far as we know here, considering
)that you
)remain silent on the question of whether you have yet managed to observe
)even one classroom, about what goes on in those classrooms,
Not relevant to what I wrote. I did not give an opinion on whether or not
Waldorf education was "religious."
However, for the record, I have not observed a Waldorf classroom in a
regular school. I have spent a fair amount of time at Waldorf preschools,
which are what is currently relevant for our daughter.
) and you
)certainly have no idea what evidence PLANS may present regarding whether
)anthroposophical beliefs are "systematically" present in the schools in
)question.
"No idea" is polemic. But certainly I have not seen the evidence, which
might, in fact, be why I've not rendered an opinion. I wrote only about the
motion for summary judgement, with a little about whether or not
"anthroposophy" is a religion, a matter which the court will probably avoid
deciding.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
"Or perhaps they really believe that what they have written is
legally cogent. (The plaintiff's briefs that I read seemed to be
written for a popular audience, not for an audience of legally
sophisticated judges.... Not the way to write, I'd think, if you
care about prevailing in federal court, and especially on prevailing
in a motion for summary judgement, which requires the greatest
strictness of satisfying every possible objection.)"
Well, I do have a law degree (University of Minnesota, class of 1992), have written briefs, have argued briefs, etc. Judges are not a monolithic group. Just a quick perusal of the U.S. Supreme Court, the spectrum of which ranges from brilliant people to buffoons, provides a good example of that. A judge may or may not be "legally sophisticated." It is not a given. Also, a large percentage of judges neither do their own research nor write their own opinions; that is what law clerks are for. Judges are as varied in their work, beliefs, and ethics as anyone else. From my experience their greatest concern is in having an opinion negatively treated by an appeals panel; that sort of thing adversely impacts on whatever future career moves they have planned.
The law professors I respected were those who taught how to argue the law creatively and in a way that educates the judges. However, more than that we had for three years drummed into our heads that s/he who defines the issues, wins. An attorney who assumes that the issues are obvious and therefore does not take the offensive in defining them, won't fare well starting from the beginning of the case. No judge is going to understand every issue, much less its legal history and First Amendment law is just way too broad for anyone to have knowledge of its every aspect. If whether or not anthroposophy is a religion is a factual issue, then it is for the fact-finder to decide that issue.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
"Do First Nation children take up their tradional religions and beliefs?"
Actually, I stated, "traditional First Nations" children and I did so for the reason that I don't know of anyone raised in the traditions of their people who do not believe in them. There are many FN people who are no connection - primarily as a result of the U.S. government's extermination policies - to their people. "Religion" itself is something rooted in Judeo-Christianity. The compartmentalizaton of one's beliefs from one's work and from one's other activities is odd and probably not shared by most people in the world.
There are FN people who belong to the Native American Church who also perceive themselves as being "traditional" even though many fo their own people don't view them that way. I have known some FN people who are Lutheran because their spouses are, but then they don't identify as "traditional" in their beliefs.
Do
statistics exist?
To do any sort of statistical study, one must first define the terms, which in this case would include "religion." Then when one makes conclusions based on the stats, one must always keep in mind those definitions. Otherwise, the conclusions will be flawed and unsupported.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:04:46 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, you wrote:
)I have not noticed any declaration by U.S. courts that Mr. Bush's
)"faith-based" initiative is unconstitutional.
It takes -years- for Establishment Clause cases to work their way
through the courts. Ours is going through the change of teeth now.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:26:57 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)Exactly *my* point. I should pay any *additional* costs. Not the basic cost
)that would be paid by the state anyway. I agree absolutely that my decision
)to send my child to private school, if I can afford to do so at the time,
)should not cause any increased expense to the public, nor should it in any
)significant way deprive public school students of needed funding.
)
I'm sorry. I think this argument is complpete nonsense. It is absolutely at
odds with the agreed position that you benefit from your personal financial
support for public schools regardless of whether you have children or not,
and regardless of how you choose to have them educated.
)My point, however, is also that my decision should not *save* the state
)substantial sums, effectively at my expense. What the present system does
)is to set up a very substantial barrier to private education.
This is also nonsense. If we take a snapshot of the situation right now,
some fraction of the appropriate population is in public schools and the
most of the rest is in private. Your taxes fund those that are actually
being educated publicly. Your taxes are not being used to fund a place for
every appropriate member of the population to be publicly educated whether
or not they are actually being publicly educated. If you have a child who is
being publicly educated and you choose to move that child to private
education, there might or might not be a decrease in the actual costs of
providing that public education. A move in the opposite direction of one
child might or might not increase the cost. I grant that given the numbers
of children actually in private education, if they all moved to public
education, the cost of public education would rise assuming an attempt was
made to keep the quality the same. However, your taxes are not funding this.
Your taxes are funding (oops sorry, underfunding) the children who are
really there. Your desire to have some tax relief because your child is in
private education is understandable, but it is not supported by the facts.
)
)In another response to what I've written, Mr. Farrell claimed that my plan
)is designed to favor religious education, on the grounds that I have
)allegedly stated my desire for "spirituality" in my child's education. It
)would be more accurate to say that what I desire is a certain kind of
)sensitivity, a sensitivity to the whole child; this is not identical to
)"spirituality." It happens that Waldorf education, of all the common forms,
)seems to offer this, though not without problems, to be sure.
I agree that public education should be improved. I expect that we differ in
how that improvement should take place. I am not convinced by your claim
that your desire for "sensitivity" is different to a desire for
"spirituality" or religion. It seems to me that the approach you wish to
take ignores the possibility that public education can be improved by
working with public education.
)
)But that sensitivity is not tied to "religion," per se, and I'd, in fact,
)prefer that religion not be taught in the school (except in a relatively
)neutral way, as students study world religions). Waldorf's strong
)anthroposophical focus, whether or not it rises to the legal definition of
)"religion," is a problem for me, not a plus. Ironically, I find it somewhat
)more likely that we'd be happy at a Waldorf charter school than at a pure
)Waldorf School (and a pure Waldorf school, i.e., closely following -- one
)might say "religiously" following -- Steiner's indications must necessarily
)be private).
)
))I meant to add that this additional expense that you wish to incur should
))not relieve you from the responsibility to support public education
))through taxation, since you benefit from this in the same way a childless
))person does, regardless of how you choose to educate your own children.
)
)And, of course, I agree. However, the public interest is in universal
)education, not in whether or not that education is public or private.
)
I agree that the public interest is universal education. I have no doubt
that one could build an education system that guaranteed universal education
and which was based entirely on private schools. I know of no place where
this has been done.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
10,000 children need sponsors – change a life:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9294008;9739733;y?http://www.worldvision.com.au/childsponsorship/search/child_search.asp?om=1
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1425
-- Topica Digest --
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:33:43 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Gideon Mills wrote:
"The compartmentalizaton of one's beliefs from one's work and from one's
other activities is odd and probably not shared by most people in the
world."
Strangely enough, I find this compartmentalization odd, and I am sure I
don't do it. I am sure some people do do this. I think they are called
hypocrites.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Love Movies? You'll love HomeScreen. Rental DVDs - no late fees! Go to:
http://www.ninemsn.homescreen.com.au/account/freetrial/?.promo=9msn_hotmail_
tagline
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1426
-- Topica Digest --
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By gideonmills yahoo.com
translations
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Re: OT: Arabic grammar re proper names
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Re: Disillusioned future Waldorf teacher vs. arrogant wannabe historian
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Waldorf and the Nazi era
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:55:01 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 10:14 PM 8/3/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)This is word games. "Sponsoring" = "reimbursing" = "funding."
Abd:
)This is, indeed, a word game.
Follow the money. Many synonyms can be found for "paying." I am making a
point, Abd. The differences between words like "sponsoring" and
"reimbursing" denote differences in the way the money would be making its
way through a structure. In one scenario, the state sets up a religious
school, indeed a more egregious violation of church/state than "reimbursing"
parents for religious schools they have chosen without the state's
involvement. Or, whoops, I guess the state is involved after all, since
they're paying for it. I am saying that where the money starts and where the
money ends up is the crucial point, and that routing the money differently
so that it is technically "reimbursing" rather than "sponsoring" makes no
difference where the constitutional issues are concerned.
)The effort is being made to define two things as equal by claiming that one
)word can be used to describe both.
Yes. That's correct. The two things are equal and the same word *can* be
used to describe both. Like the way manufacturers offer a "rebate" rather
than just lowering the price, as a promotional device. That's a
psychological device meant to make you feel you got away with something, you
"got some money back." It makes the offer more attractive and distracts you
from the fact that the thing was overpriced to begin with. If the state just
"reimburses" you for something, it maintains an illusion that families are
completely in control and the state is not playing any significant role in
controlling public education. But they are. They're paying for it - they're
darn well controlling it.
And of course, my argument is that further, if they can "reimburse" they can
certainly "sponsor" too, since you'll have removed the principle that says
they can't pay for religious education.
)State sponsorship of a religious activity is constitutionally prohibited.
)State reimbursement of a religious entity for a non-religious expense
)incurred by the entity in pursuit of a public benefit is not, as far as I
)can tell, constitutionally prohibited. Reimbursement for an expense is
)*not* sponsorship, except of the specific activity for which reimbursement
)is being paid.
I disagree, I believe reimbursing people for it is sponsoring it.
Your last sentence above, this claim rests on the assumption that the
"specific activity" - education - is separable from the overall mission of
the organization, which is religious. The analogy to a computer programming
service is not valid, it's not analogous to education or other human
services (as in faith-based initiatives), which, in their delivery, are
rarely disintwined from the philosophy and goals of the organization. A
Catholic school is providing a Catholic education. If they didn't want to
provide a Catholic education, they wouldn't bother running a school. It
certainly isn't a money maker. It's done to promote the values and mission
of the Catholic church, one of which is education of children according to
Catholicism.
(Just as Waldorf schools promote the values and mission of anthroposophy,
one of which is to educate children according to anthroposophy.)
)The kind of voucher system I've proposed would quite carefully avoid any
)religious preferences, and my expectation is that most schools taking
)advantage of it would, in fact, not be religious.
I agree that "most" would not be religious. That's irrelevant. We're talking
about the ones that are.
)What is new would only be that religious schools would not be, per se,
)*excluded.*
Exactly, and they're *supposed* to be excluded.
I wrote:
)I see this same argument continues and is embellished in later posts. These
)are synonyms for "paying for it." It doesn't matter who "organized" or
)"established" the religious school, as you later propose; the person
)*paying* obviously has the right to organize or establish whatever they
)want and will use it.
)Yes. And private schools, by definition, are privately organized. Not, as
)in Ms. Winter's polemic, to do "whatever they want," but for certain lawful
)purposes.
Yes, for lawful purposes, and in this country, religion in public schools
isn't lawful. You're proposing that they become free to include content that
isn't lawful. (I continue to lament the fact that you're not arguing against
the law; merely arguing that breaking it is no big deal.)
I wrote:
)Once you've established that the state has that right, the state will
)certainly use it to set up religious schools.
)The state, under the U.S. Constitution, does not have the right to organize
)a religious school. It may, however, in my opinion, provide for the
)reimbursement of private organizations for non-religious activities
)undertaken by those schools.
That is the point under dispute. On the one, side strict church/state
separationists argue to keep the wall solid, fearing the slippery slope
(sorry to mix metaphors) of increasingly overt religious causes and
activities being funded. On the other side, the argument seems to be merely,
Don't worry, it probably won't happen or if it does it probably won't be too
bad.
)I have absolute confidence that, as described, and absent some state
)preference for this organization over other competing organizations, the
)U.S. courts would rule that it is not.
LOL! "Absent" the state preference for "this one over that one" . . . but
that preference is the restriction you're arguing should be removed!
I have not seen you address the scenario where two or more different
religious schools are competing for the same funding. (Please do not say
this is far-fetched; there are 2 different religious schools within walking
distance of my house.) Someone makes a decision which one will get funded.
On what is it based? (assume they are equally competent, given things like
test scores etc. which you have proposed as accountability criteria). How
will you avoid the state openly favoring one religious group over another?
Toss a coin?
)I am in no way advocating that the separation of church and state be
)abandoned. It is an important principle of American democracy. However, an
)attempt is here being made to use this principle outside its proper
)application.
The reverse is true, the courts have ruled many times that religion is
inappropriate in public schools.
You are suggesting it is not very important to protect the principle, and
that if there were violations here and there, it would be no big deal, we
shouldn't worry about them, shouldn't fear that the violations would be too
numerous or too egregious, or that anyone would care much, or *should* care
much, as long as the students could answer carefully worded exam questions.
I stopped reading your post there :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:56:44 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
)This much I can tell. Diana is not a lawyer.
No, I'm not, and since you aren't either, apparently neither of us have any
relevant expertise to be prattling on about what the court will or won't do
or should or shouldn't do. I'll stop :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:56:07 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd originally wrote:
)My point, however, is also that my decision should not *save* the state
)substantial sums, effectively at my expense.
I'm tempted to ask, Why not? Why shouldn't your decision save the state
substantial sums - since you are not making any contribution there, the very
least you can do is save them a little money here and there. Their services
remain available to you anytime you desire them, they didn't ask you to take
your child out of the school. Heck yes you should save them a little money.
It's a participatory thing, it's not tit for tat.
Peter F. said:
)Your desire to have some tax relief because your child is in
)private education is understandable, but it is not supported by the facts.
The desire for tax relief because one's child is not in the school is at
least offset by the fact that Mr. Lomax is also not supporting the school in
the way that, one could reasonably argue, parents of children in the
neighborhood served by the school have a civic obligation to do.
In point of fact, there are many citizens and groups that feel they are
responsible to aid the public schools *even though* they have no children in
them, or have no children period. Why does a senior citizen volunteer at the
public school, why do local businesses give grants, or organize tutors?
The exact opposite of whining for tax relief.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
There has been some discussion on this list of sexual abuse. I've had the
opportunity to counsel some sexual offenders, in particular one man who was
facing serious charges of abuse with young boys. Now, the reason I bring it
up here is what he came up with as to why what he did was *wrong*. Our
attitudes about sex are highly conditioned by our culture, the age of
consent varies widely from culture to culture, as do attitudes about
homosexuality, etc. Pedophiles typically think of what they do as "love,"
and this is one reason why the treatment of pedophilia can be problematic.
However, one thing had become clear to this man. In having sex with a boy,
he was creating a secret that must be maintained from the parents, and he
very readily saw this as wrong. He was dividing, by his action, the child
and its parents. Even if he thought that the sex itself was *good*, he saw
that the *effect*, in context, was evil, he saw that if the sex remained
secret, it was harmful, and if it came out into the open, it was also harmful.
Here, some Waldorf educators think of what they do as better for the child
than what the parents would do. They may or may not be right about this.
But if they go about their work in a way that creates a gap between the
child and the parents, it will harm the child. Only if the parent is
himself or herself a serious child abuser, and the teacher the safe refuge,
might this be different, and in that case, the responsibility would be to
*report* the parent.
Margaret here:
Hello, Abd: I've been away for a couple of weeks so am now trying to catch up with my e-mail, which is why I am a little late in responding to this post. Your remarks about creating secrets that create a gap between the child and the parents brought to mind another serious issue I have with Waldorf. The news media and publications on parenting constantly remind parents to teach their children to beware of anyone who tells them to keep something secret from their parents. We taught this to our children when they were young but never thought this would be necessary when they were teenagers.
I was shocked when our daughter told me about an incident at her ex Waldorf high school in which she said the teacher broke the teacher/student confidence rule by telling the parents of another child about something that child had done. I asked my daughter what she meant by "the teacher/student confidence rule." She told me that whenever a student got into trouble for something it was to be kept as a secret between the student and the teachers and not told to the parents. My daughter seemed to think this was a "good" rule. Hardly surprising, since most teenagers would probably prefer their parents not know about any supposed wrongdoing they might be guilty of. What my daughter did not realize was that this happens to be one of many cult tactics for getting control of individuals. I explained this to her. I also explained to her that when parents pay a private school to educate their children, it is supposed to be a partnership between school and parents, not a partnership
between school and students to shut out parents.
When I spoke to the mother of the student involved, the mother told me that, in fact, up until the time she and her husband were informed of the incidents, one of the teachers had repeatedly held over their child's head the threat of telling her parents about it.
Interestingly enough, the incident occurred during the same field trip on which the part-time teacher had inappropriately touched some of the girls. One of the boys had pressured this student into engaging in a sexual activity (not intercourse) that she had never engaged in before. The girl regretted it and when they were back at school wrote a note to a friend advising her never to do it. A teacher confiscated the note and that was how the faculty learned of it. The girl was put through the wringer by faculty members and at least one of them told some parents about it and warned them to keep their children away from her. Seems like the confidentiality rule was rather arbitrary.
The irony was that the incident happened while the girl was under school "supervision." I put the word in quotation marks for the following reason: Unknown to us and this girl's parents, the sleeping arrangements for the students apparently involved no separation of boys and girls. Students told me they slept in sleeping bags, in one group, out in the open under the night sky. The two female "chaperones" (class sponsors) slept inside a tent, leaving the part-time male teacher with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior as the only adult outside with the children. Like my daughter and most of her then 15-year-old friends, the girl in question was never allowed by her parents to sleep over at boys' houses or to have boys sleep over at her house. Yet here she was on a Waldorf school field trip, sleeping side by side with boys with raging hormones under the sole supervision of a man none of us would have trusted to protect our daughters had we known his history, while the female
chaperones slumbered in their tent.
Back to the issue of creating a gap between student and parents. Another ex-Waldorf parent told me the following story about her son's experience as a Waldorf high school student: The boy's two class sponsors told the students that they needed to make an appointment to confide a secret, something they had not told anyone, not even their parents. He told his mother that he had no secrets. Allegedly, the sponsors put pressure on him when he did not make an appointment. The mother called one of the sponsors to tell him she did not approve of it and the sponsor, a born and bred anthroposophist, told her she did not "understand Waldorf" as though this invalidated any opinion she might have. Because there was to be some sort of penalty for not sharing a secret and after conferring with his parents about what he was going to say, the son did make the appointment and told them something that was neither a secret nor anything they could use against him.
My husband and I would never knowingly have sent our children to a school where teachers promote the keeping of secrets from parents. As the legal guardians of our children, I believe we should have been informed of it before enrolling them. This is another case where open disclosure should be called for. I think it is obvious, however, that any school that disclosed such a policy would recruit very few students, if any.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com) wrote:
"The irony was that the incident happened while the girl was under school "supervision." I put the word in quotation marks for the following reason: Unknown to us and this girl's parents, the sleeping arrangements for the students apparently involved no separation of boys and girls. Students told me they slept in sleeping bags, in one group, out in the open under the night sky. The two female "chaperones" (class sponsors) slept inside a tent, leaving the part-time male teacher with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior as the only adult outside with the children."
That sounds eerily like an incident involving the Pleasant Ridge Waldorf school in Viroqua. A couple, who were PRWS parents and have since left the area, were told after the fact that a Waldorf parent whose daughter was by human services pulled out of the school when she talked about the sexual activity he was engaging in with her - she was in third grade at the time as I recall - was the adult chaperone on an overnight school trip. The couple I spoke with were appalled. They learned of the accusations against this man while sitting in a meeting at the school. They were new to the school and were having trouble figuring out exactly what the other parents and administrators were talking about, because it was being spoken of in bits and pieces. When they were leaving the building, one of the other parents approached them and said, "I suppose you are wondering what all that was about." and then proceeded to tell them. They asked me to find out more for them via courthouse records,
etc., which was impossible because of the legal confidentiality involved in cases concerning minor children. This couple was very concerned, not just for their own children's safety, but for the safety of the girl who was still living with the father for at least 1/2 of the week (with the other 1/2 being with the mother) and for the safety of her siblings and other neighborhood children. It was because of that incident and others involving the downright nastiness directed towards one of their sons when they demanded that he be placed in a classroom with a different teacher that led them to leave their area. This couple are rather devout Christians and obviously not people who would fit into a Waldorf mold. To this day, the local Waldorfers get very defensive about this and the mother is still very attached to that community. When the couple I've referred to directly asked the mother about the situation, she became extremely defensive and, in essence, called her own daughter a
liar.
Another incident that concerned a lot of other people involved a class trip to a local park several years ago. One of the young girls was allowed to place her tent well away from the others and near the woods. This park is known as a place where people hang out and/or get drunk and the park police generally disappear after 10pm when the park closes. That night the young girl was pulled from her tent by two men, who turned out to have sexual assault histories, and it was her screaming that woke up the "chaperone." When I spoke with the chaperone, whose own daughter was at the overnight, about the incident, she appeared to have no understanding of how she was responsible for that girl's safety and that she had no role in what happened or nearly happened.
"Back to the issue of creating a gap between student and parents. Another ex-Waldorf parent told me the following story about her son's experience as a Waldorf high school student: The boy's two class sponsors told the students that they needed to make an appointment to confide a secret, something they had not told anyone, not even their parents."
That is such cultist behavior; it has to do with control over another. When we first moved here we were immediately targeted by the local Waldorfers as people to be "love-bombed" into their fold. Also, almost immediately my child was told to keep secrets, particularly as pertained to what some of their men were doing with young children. It was the Waldorf children and not their parents who warned my child about which men and which woman to stear clear of. Some of the men are outright sexual predators and some of them and the one woman are what is referred to as covert sexual predators. I directly confronted one of them and he with the support of the local Waldorf community vehemently defended his behavior. The Waldorf children were told to stay away from my child, whose was directly told by one of their parents that she was going to be "banned" from the local food co-op because "You keep going to your mom and telling her everything that's going on here."
However, the worst incident involved the teacher of the local charter school that is covertly a Waldorf school, albeit a non-structured one. The teacher hasn't been trained in Waldorf, but she is extremely close to the Waldorf community, is highly secretive concerning what the students are doing (which as it turns out isn't much of anything) and we have no doubt that she will be sending her own children to Pleasant Ridge. This teacher knew that one of her students had been a victim of a sexual crime and that the student had become pregnant as a result of that crime. The teacher provided the name and number of an abortion clinic to the student who went to the clinic, got the abortion and nearly bled to death. (The hospital ER staff had to shut off the blood supply to the girl's uterus in order to stop the bleeding.) This was all done without the parent's knowledge and the teacher has never faced any negative consequences as a result.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:43:37 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: translations
Hi Chris, you wrote:
)Mr. Staudenmeier,
)You recently posted your translations of some Steiner.
)I'm wondering if it would be convenient for you to
)post the German original in its entirety as I am
)conversant in German as well, and would be most
)interested.
Yes! I'd be very glad to post the original text. You are the first Steiner
defender who has ever taken me up on my frequently repeated offers to do
just that. I'm in the midst of moving across the country and all of my books
are boxed up, so it'll take me a few days to get to them. I should be able
to post the passages from GA 349 early next week. I would be delighted if
you could take the time to provide your own translations -- I will likely be
off the list by then, but it would give readers an opportunity to compare
the different versions. On that score, you wrote:
)Qualms with translation:
)
)"...., ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen"
)
)this is nitpicking I know but frequently the english
)anthroposophical lingo "spiritually creative"
)irritates me.
Me too. Established vocabulary is, however, a crucial consideration for
translators, hence the existing English anthroposophical lingo is often a
helpful guide when rendering hitherto untranslated passages from Steiner's
published works.
)I would translate schaffende in this
)context as "productive" or "originating"....in English
)"creative" implies artistic/arty in a way which I
)don't sense the German schaffen(d) doing.
I can't agree with your second point about the connotations of "schaffen",
which does indeed mean "to create", very much including creation in the
artistic sense. But your first point is quite correct; "productive" is a
fine choice for rendering the term, and I sometimes use it myself (for
example, when discussing the traditional antisemitic distinction between
"schaffendes und raffendes Kapital", which I render as "productive versus
parasitic capital"). Both "creative" and "productive" are good analogues for
"schaffend", while "originating" only fits in certain contexts, and this
isn't one of them.
)Again, I
)recognize that creative is valid I just tend to get
)annoyed....furthermore, as you well know rGeist is a
)subtle word, especially in any connection to German
)philosophy.
Yes indeed. I've had a number of exchanges on that very topic on this list
over the years.
)In English, I believe that using the terms
)"spirit" and "spiritual" can lead to confusion when
)they are synonimous with "spectre" or "ghost", or that
)panoply. In my reading, the intent in the German leans
)closer to rGeist as the Mind
Not for Rudolf Steiner in 1923! It sounds to me like you are still laboring
under a series of misconceptions about the development of Steiner's theories
and their relation to the legacy of German Idealism. For much of Hegel's
work, for instance, "mind" is a more or less adequate rendering of "Geist"
(though of course the several existing translations of the Phenomenology
disagree on exactly this point); for Steiner's work after his theosophical
turn, in contrast, "mind" is virtually always wrong. He meant *spirit* in
the supernatural sense, and said so over and over again.
)"ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen" thus could
)equally be considered "is the most
)mentally(spiritually) productive race"
)this has a whole different ring than "is the most
)spiritually creative race"
It does? Why? I agree with Akua on this point, and I'd be very interested to
hear what you think this difference means. To my ears, "spiritually
productive" in the context of Steiner's sentence would make the whole
passage even more egregious, not less so. For what it's worth, one of my
anthroposophist interlocutors once recommended translating the sentence as
follows: "The white race is the race oriented toward the future, the race
that is working creatively with the spirit." I have no qualms with that
translation, and it shows that the passage is patently racist. This would
still be the case if we replaced "creatively" with "productively". Do you
disagree?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
'Hi Abd, thanks for your reply. You wrote: Some putative anthroposophists may
)use some of what Steiner wrote to justify allowing harm, but it is a big
)step from that to conclude that anthroposophy justifies allowing harm."
What about
the other architects of the Stalinist system? It is highly improbable that
all of these people suffered from some sort of dementia. A much more
plausible explanation would include ideological factors of the kind we're
discussing here, as well as institutional factors. Historians of Stalinism
are still arguing about which factors deserve more attention, but to say
that all those who administered Stalin's crimes were not influenced by a
Stalinist belief system strains credulity. The same is true in the case of
anthroposophical conceptions of karma and destiny.
I just completed my reading of "The Myth of the Master Race: Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi Ideology" by Robert Cecil. Quoting from that, "[Alfred Rosenberg] wrote in his memoir, 'National-Socialism was a European answer to the question of our century. It was the noblest idea to which a German could devote his powers. . . .It was a true social ideology. . .' ["Traum und Tragoedie," p. 238] The court was not interested; as Mr Dodd waid, 'I think we are all, as a matter of principle, opposed to prosecuting any man for what he thinks.' ["TMWC, Vol. XI, p. 449] The Soviet prosecutor made no comment. The court was more interested in the devastation, the human misery, the holocaust of victims. Yet it was not, in fact, possible to separate cause adn effect in the way that Dodd wished; his Soviet colleague would have been able from his understanding of ideology to explain, if he had wished, that men are liable to act on the basis of what they have been taught to think. As it was, it was
left, by a curious irony, to an SS general, who had turned Crown's evidence, to press home the point that Rosenberg refused to perceive. Erich v. dem Bach-Zelewski remarked in the witness-box, 'I am of the opinion that when for years, for decades, the doctrine is preached that the Slav is an inferior race and the Jew not even human, then such an outcome is inevitable.' [Quoted in "Race and Reich," p. 364]" p. 229-30
"Nazis, as such, was unmistakably cradled in a set of circumstances that would nto repeat themselves in the same form. . .Underlying Nazism, however, were two ideas which have universal application and are very much alive today. The first corresponds to man's basic need to think better of himself by thinking worse of some group of people different from himself. . .Secondly, the belief seems fated to persist among large groups that their misfortunes must necessarily be due not to individual inadequacy or misdirection of effort, but to the malignant conspiracy of some other groups, which may at any given time be labelled 'the bosses', 'the Unions', 'the Commies', 'the colonial oppressors', 'the blacks' or, more simply, 'them'." p. 230
Before I ever read anything of Steiner's I had had enough interaction with this Waldorf community to know that they truly believe themselves to be superior people in every way. They are dogmatic about everything from food to education to how to build a house. What I find so odd about that is that they are also the most anti-intellectual and ill-read people I have ever met.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net) wrote:
Let's also put this into a much larger perspective - the field trip took
place only a few months after the school underwent huge criticism and a
parent uprising on a different issue. The school hired a teacher whose
teenage son was a pedophile. The report I received was that the teacher
had been removed from a neighboring school when it was discovered that
she was arranging sleepovers with children from her class for her son
who she knew to be a pedophile - again that is a report and I have no
first-hand knowledge that this happened - it was reported in a parent
meeting that I did not attend. When the inevitable happened at a
festival-type event, the school quickly pointed out that the child that
was sexually assaulted was not one of the students of the school (as if
that mattered). Later, parents found out that a similar activity took
place only a few weeks earlier - same teenage boy with the a different
child - and that the school had covered it up. The school continually
gave conflicting information regarding the events that transpired.
First we were told that nobody from our school bothered to check why
this teacher was released from the neighboring school but later parents
were later told the information was withheld from our school because of
a pending *court action*. Nonetheless, our school hired this teacher,
discovered the nature of her son's behavior (by testing on the children
of our school during afterschool care) and, once his behavior became
suspect, claimed to have secured a signed contract with the teacher that
her son would not be premitted on campus unsupervised. It turns out the
signed contract (after parents insisted on seeing it) was signed only by
the school, not by the teacher. The boy was indeed unsupervised on
campus many times and, in fact, had regular contact with my own children
- contact that, to this day, my children are unwilling to discuss with
anyone. Meanwhile, NO mandatory reporting had taken place despite two
events of sexual misconduct. Police reports were eventually filed and
the teacher, after a huge parent outcry, dismissed. Many parents took
their children out of the school.
Margaret here:
Pete, I had no idea about the details of the case you describe above. My husband and I were told a very tame, sanitized version of it - teacher's teenage son visited campus and showed signs of possibly being a pedophile, teacher told not to allow him on campus again, he showed up at a school event and frightened a boy by chasing him but nothing bad happened, the teacher was fired, end of story. We heard it from someone who had professional dealings with the school and who himself heard the story from one of the administrators. If only we had known, we would have handled things very differently and, obviously, far more aggressively.
I am so sorry your children were exposed to this individual.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: OT: Arabic grammar re proper names
Abd, thanks for the explanation. I can see why many Muslims would prefer that the full name be used since, at least in your case, it sounds more attractive both in the Arabic and English. But since you encourage it and I'm all for quick and easy, I'll stick with Abd!
Best wishes,
Margaret
Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
Yes, very off-topic, so I've changed the subject line.
At 01:09 AM 7/16/2004, Margaret Sachs wrote:
)Abd (I hope this is the correct way to address you),
"
Many Muslims would prefer that the full name be used, in this case Abd
ul-Rahman, "Servant of the Merciful." "Abd" means "Servant," "Slave," or
"Lover." But I don't mind, and I've encouraged the use of Abd, because it
is quick and easy. Mr. Lomax is also fine, or even, in a technical context,
the bare Lomax.
"Abdul" is generally incorrect, an artifact of making assumptions about
Muslim names based on English usage.
) I know it's OT but as someone with an interest in language, I am very
) interested to learn that Arabic names can change according to whether
) they are subject or object of a verb.
Many Muslims, in English, will disregard the Arabic declension of the noun,
and to insist upon it might be considered a bit obsessive. But it is a fact
that, if we were speaking Arabic, the form of a noun, and proper names are
nouns, will generally change with how the noun is used; the regular
manifestation of this is a terminating vowel, -u in the nominative, -a in
the accusative, and -i in the genitive. To state this in more familiar
English terms, the nominative is used for the subject, the accusative for
the object, and the genitive has two usages: as the object of a preposition
or as an indication of ownership.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacoW6b1dkiGbNGmryf/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net) wrote:
charlie frey wrote:
) I think all Waldorf teacher training programs require a BA.
I think you will find that this is inaccurate.
Margaret here:
The following link is to a page of the Web site of the Waldorf teacher training program known as the Waldorf Institute of Southern California (WISC)
http://www.waldorfteaching.org/programs/core_apply.htm
Please note the following statement on that page: "Most Waldorf schools and parents prefer that teachers hold a college degree, although it is not a requirement for admission to WISC."
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned future Waldorf teacher vs. arrogant wannabe historian
Mike, it seems that your English skills have deteroriated since you aced your college English back in the 80's. I know that there's a tendency when writing e-mails not to be fussy about certain aspects of writing but it strikes me that someone who is claiming to have aced college English would be careful not to make as many spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes as you make in your post.
Best wishes,
Margaret
Mike Helsher (mhelsher ne.rr.com) wrote:
Hi Mike, you wrote:
)~~~Ahhh, so that's your answer to the whole post?
P: No, that was a reply to the line from your post about being initmidated
by
reading and writing skills. I didn't really have much to say about the rest
of your post, but if you're feeling neglected, I suppose I could try again.
You began with a remark about the Socratic method which suggests that this
method is not to your liking. Perhaps you could explain why?
~~~why does this remark suggest this? did I actually state that I dislike
it? why do you like this method? why do you want me to explain why? can this
method be abused so as to win arguments and gain intellectual
superiority? Does this kind of use of this method actually help come closer
to the truth? Why does is seem easy to use this method to distract and lead
people in a different direction, is it fun to use this method to play
intellectual mind games?
P: Your next sentence read in part: "I have read all the claims that he has
tried to substantiate about RS/Karma/racism/Nazi/waldorf negative smear, and
yet I still don't understand how he might know anything about anthroposophy
(applied) and it's founder." It sounds like you think my aim is to smear
Steiner, Waldorf, karma, and possibly racism and Nazism as well. Since that
is not my aim, I don't have a whole lot to say in response.
You then introduced your notion of empathy again. I've explained to you
several times over why I think your understanding of this concept is
mistaken and inapplicable to many historical subjects. Would you like me to
repeat the explanation? The short version is that when you say empathy you
mean sympathy, which is indeed one of the possible meanings of the latter
term. Empathy in this sense is obviously the wrong sort of empathy to bring
to bear on subjects like racism and Nazism. That's why I rely on the other
kind of empathy in my historical work. I invite you one more time to explain
why you think this kind of empathy is not appropriate to studying
anthroposophy's history, and why you think empathy in the sense of sympathy
is the proper attitude to take toward phenomena like racism.
~~~There you go again, stating what you think that I think, and babbling on
about it like it's the truth. I'm not talking about sympathy at all. I'm
talking about real empathy, something that you show very little signs of
actually comprehending. Instead, you make up your own definitions of the
word that sound like it will back up your arrogant assumptions about RS
and Anthroposophy.
The usual crock of semantic drivel.
Form Webster's again:
1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that
the object appears to be infused with it
2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and
vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another
of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and
experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the
capacity for this.
The kind of empathy that you exhibit in your writings on RS fits nicely into
#1.
I'm sorry to say that #2 is just not applicable IMO.
But your free to make up your own definitions as you like. Just don't
expect me, or most people I know, to buy it.
P: Your next paragraph was addressed to Charlie, not to me, so I have little
to
say in response. After that point in your first post, it was increasingly
unclear what, if anything, you were getting at, thus I don't really know
what my response might be, but if you'd like to reformulate your point I'd
be happy to give it a shot.
~~~Do you ever get tired of using that lame excuse, I might do a search and
bring up an average some day, as to how often you run like dog with your
tale between your legs, and write that you don't understand, or that others
are confused, when that going gets tough.
)In answer to your question, I'd say those who are intimidated by reading
)and
)writing skills were probably stifled intellectually by a system that all to
)often rewards intellectual achievement above all else. Maybe they might not
)make good philosophy or English teachers, if they did not grow past this
)fear. But then again, they might make really good teachers if they did. And
)they might become good shop, art, or gym teachers.
P: Rather than quoting one of my favorite Woody Allen lines here,
~~~Oh Please do! Humor is a good thing. I'd actually be quite impressed if
you did post something really funny once in a while. Might even bring more
credibility to your writings on RS.
P: perhaps I could simply point out that you're not studying to become a
shop teacher, an
art teacher, or a gym teacher, Mike. Last you told us, you were studying to
become a Waldorf history teacher. If that is still the case, I encourage you
to rethink your attitude toward reading and writing skills.
~~~OOOOhhh I get it. For the record, I aced my college English back in the
80's.
I was referring to people that might read some very prosaic slanted article
on RS, who don't really have the desire to learn to read and write on the
same level, and so are naively convinced that the article must be true.
A while back, while talking to a clerk in a gift shop about Waldorf, a
person in line behind me asked: "wasn't the guy that started those schools
a Nazi?"
This kind of shit is intolerable to me. If you and the cult of PLANS are
going to keep spreading this selective anthro/nazi propaganda, then you
ought not be surprised when your own reputation gets smeared as well. And
that it will, if I have anything to do with it.
Mike
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply now for a No-Annual-Fee Discover® Platinum Card
0% Intro APR*, No Annual Fee, Up to 2% Cashback Bonus®
award* Start Saving Today – APPLY NOW! It's fast, easy and
secure.
http://click.topica.com/caacpgwb1dkiGbNGmryf/DiscoverCard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:28:21 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Waldorf and the Nazi era
I have bumped into this quote a few times now at Waldorf sites:
"With the rise to power of Hitler's government, a life and death struggle
began for the German Waldorf Schools. There was continuous harassment, and
finally they were closed with the simple explanation that there was no place
in Nazi Germany for any school that educated individuals to think for
themselves."
Does anyone have information regarding the source of this type of quote?
Was this "simple explanation" ever documented?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:16:15 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
walden wrote:
)
) I have bumped into this quote a few times now at Waldorf sites:
)
) "With the rise to power of Hitler's government, a life and death
) struggle
) began for the German Waldorf Schools. There was continuous harassment,
) and
) finally they were closed with the simple explanation that there was no
) place
) in Nazi Germany for any school that educated individuals to think for
) themselves."
)
) Does anyone have information regarding the source of this type of quote?
Somebody's fertile imagination, no doubt.
) Was this "simple explanation" ever documented?
I don't know; however Peter S. has documented a rather different
interpretation of the relationship between the anthroposophical and Nazi
authorities:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Staudenmaier.html
)Immediately after the NSDAP attained state power in early 1933, the
)leaders of organized anthroposophy took the initiative in extending
)their support to the new government. In June of that year a Danish
)newspaper asked Günther Wachsmuth, Secretary of the International
)Anthroposophic Society in Switzerland, about anthroposophy's attitude
)toward the Nazi regime. He replied, "We can't complain. We've been
)treated with the utmost consideration and have complete freedom to
)promote our doctrine." Speaking for anthroposophists generally,
)Wachsmuth went on to express his "sympathy" and "admiration" for
)National Socialism.(
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1427
-- Topica Digest --
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
Critic's Dictionary
By robituk yahoo.co.uk
Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Disillusioned future Waldorf
teacher vs. arrogan
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Critic's Dictionary
By lioncell gmx.net
Re: Critic's Dictionary
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: translations
By woden101 yahoo.com
RE: Critic's Dictionary
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: translations
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Polemic
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Re: Waldorf and the Nazi era
By eastwinds pacific.net.sg
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:50:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
I seem to have agreed with Abd too soon that "most" schools benefiting from
voucher programs would be nonreligious, it appears the opposite is probably
true:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou.htm
"The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in 2000-DEC that "close to
96% of students enrolled in the program for the 1999-2000 school year
attended sectarian institutions.'"
And:
"In the late 1990s, a study of a pilot voucher programs in Cleveland OH
found that 80% of the vouchers were used to fund attendance at private
religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a New York state
voucher system was unconstitutional because its primary effect was to
advance religion."
Not vouching for the accuracy of this (and I admit the page doesn't appear
to be very up to date).
According to the ACLU, "Religious schools represent 85 percent of the total
private school enrollment in the United States."
(http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14742&c=1)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:08:21 +0000
From: (robituk yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Critic's Dictionary
Hello Peter
While you're on the subject of translation I would be interested to know
which dictionary translates the German word “Unfug” into the English
word “disgrace”. ‘The Waldorf Critic’s Dictionary of Inflammatory Words
and Phrases’, I suspect.
Regards Roger
"Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und es ist natürlich nur ein
Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große Rolle spielt."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 01:05:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Disillusioned future Waldorf
teacher vs. arrogant wannabe historian]
Margaret, you wrote,
)Mike, it seems that your English skills have deteroriated since you
)aced your college English back in the 80's. I know that there's a
)tendency when writing e-mails not to be fussy about certain aspects
)of writing but it strikes me that someone who is claiming to have
)aced college English would be careful not to make as many spelling,
)punctuation and grammar mistakes as you make in your post.
Please direct your arguments to the topic being discussed, not the
personality of your fellow subscriber. We try to ignore typos,
grammar, and spelling, as we want to encourage communication. English
is not the native language of many of our subscribers, and we don't
want them to be shy about posting for fear their writing will be
criticized.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:17:05 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Critic's Dictionary
Roger wrote:
While you're on the subject of translation I would be interested to know
which dictionary translates the German word “Unfug” into the English
word “disgrace”. ‘The Waldorf Critic’s Dictionary of Inflammatory Words
and Phrases’, I suspect.
Akua here:
As far as I do know the translation was not done by critics but by an anthroposophist, not Peter's or one of the critics' responsibility. I have repeatedly found anthroposophists' translations to be faulty when it comes to Steiner's works. Unfug surely does not mean disgrace in English. Having said that both versions question Black people's presence in Europe in an overly negative, I'd say rather racist way. Maybe we could discuss why Steiner felt this way, if and why his followers support this idea.
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:01:54 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Critic's Dictionary
Hi Roger and welcome,
I am always pleased to hear various points of view but I must echo Akua's
sentiment with regards to your choice of topics. Critics are often accused
of taking Steiner "out of context." I notice your first post to the list is
about the translation (or mistranslation) of one word, which has very little
to do with the *context* of the passage in question.
Would you be willing share your views on the actual quote or the context of
what you think Steiner was speaking about? Also, I invite you to look
through the list archives (recent or past) for Steiner quotes pertaining to
"race" and share your views with the list.
I look forward to your participation.
-Walden
Roger wrote:
While you're on the subject of translation I would be interested to know
which dictionary translates the German word “Unfug” into the English
word “disgrace”. ‘The Waldorf Critic’s Dictionary of Inflammatory Words
and Phrases’, I suspect.
Akua here:
As far as I do know the translation was not done by critics but by an
anthroposophist, not Peter's or one of the critics' responsibility. I have
repeatedly found anthroposophists' translations to be faulty when it comes
to Steiner's works. Unfug surely does not mean disgrace in English. Having
said that both versions question Black people's presence in Europe in an
overly negative, I'd say rather racist way. Maybe we could discuss why
Steiner felt this way, if and why his followers support this idea.
Save up to 67% on Omaha Steaks + Get 6 FREE Burgers and a
FREE Cutlery Set + Cutting Board!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgpb1dkiGb2QZUTf/OmahaSteaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:36:58 +0000
From: Chris (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: translations
Mr Staudenmaier,
I appreciate your offer of posting the original German. When you do I
will read it with much interest.
However, I must continue to disagree with the characterization of me
that has me as a "Steiner defender". I agree with the General
Semanticists in saying that what Woden101-July15th said or did in
particular ought not be extrapolated and taken as a definitive guide for
making assertions about the whole person; making a person who has
challenged criticism or defended "a defender"...In more ordinary
language I believe that this assumes and extrapolates too much. I've
gone to pains before belaboring this point, so I won't go much further.
Suffice it to say that just because I find Steiner interesting, as a
one-time conventional thinker turned occultist (with a depth of
orientation within the Western Esoteric tradition), does not mean that I
believe or accept as valid everything he said, let alone appoint myself
as a "Steiner defender". I think that his writings which are directly
related to:
a) epistemology
b) Occult method
and
c) direct results of the above
can offer useful, if highly unusual, perspective.
At the very least I support the idea that one can bring over scientific
and strict thinking into the realm of spiritual experience. However,
this is not something which, quite frankly, can be adequately dealt with
in ordinary discourse as prevails here, with ordinary assumptions,
ordinary theories, and ordinary stand-points for current day Americans.
If this sounds like "Anthropop" chauvinism so be it. Every specialized
discipline implicitly does this (as an aspiring scientist I know very
well). People might object that "spiritual" is synonomous with "purely
subjective" or "pure speculation", so be it. (and I would argue, along
with many other people, that such is demonstrably not the case anyways).
The hypocrisy of such assertion, in any case, is that the same sort of
people might be enthused about Stephen Hawking, for instance, whose
discipline, cosmology, is about as purely speculative as it gets. One
doesn't expect to be able to just understand complex, non-linear,
dynamical systems without hard effort and training in a certain way of
thinking about things. The same with Fundamental Ontology.
I've gotten off-track though. The case of Steiner is not yet closed for
me, that's all. Perhaps the difference between me and you is that my
Buddhist orientation has me view things spiritual as things 'to do',
firstly, and not at all necesarily things to believe. I'll concede right
here and now that I do not accept the validity of Steiner's racial
arguments, as I've seen here, for instance.
Be Well,
Chris
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Chris, you wrote:
)
)
) )Mr. Staudenmeier,
) )You recently posted your translations of some Steiner.
) )I'm wondering if it would be convenient for you to
) )post the German original in its entirety as I am
) )conversant in German as well, and would be most
) )interested.
)
)
) Yes! I'd be very glad to post the original text. You are the first
) Steiner
) defender who has ever taken me up on my frequently repeated offers to do
)
) just that. I'm in the midst of moving across the country and all of my
) books
) are boxed up, so it'll take me a few days to get to them. I should be
) able
) to post the passages from GA 349 early next week. I would be delighted
) if
) you could take the time to provide your own translations -- I will
) likely be
) off the list by then, but it would give readers an opportunity to
) compare
) the different versions. On that score, you wrote:
)
)
) )Qualms with translation:
) )
) )"...., ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen"
) )
) )this is nitpicking I know but frequently the english
) )anthroposophical lingo "spiritually creative"
) )irritates me.
)
)
) Me too. Established vocabulary is, however, a crucial consideration for
) translators, hence the existing English anthroposophical lingo is often
) a
) helpful guide when rendering hitherto untranslated passages from
) Steiner's
) published works.
)
)
) )I would translate schaffende in this
) )context as "productive" or "originating"....in English
) )"creative" implies artistic/arty in a way which I
) )don't sense the German schaffen(d) doing.
)
)
) I can't agree with your second point about the connotations of
) "schaffen",
) which does indeed mean "to create", very much including creation in the
) artistic sense. But your first point is quite correct; "productive" is a
)
) fine choice for rendering the term, and I sometimes use it myself (for
) example, when discussing the traditional antisemitic distinction between
)
) "schaffendes und raffendes Kapital", which I render as "productive
) versus
) parasitic capital"). Both "creative" and "productive" are good analogues
) for
) "schaffend", while "originating" only fits in certain contexts, and this
)
) isn't one of them.
)
)
) )Again, I
) )recognize that creative is valid I just tend to get
) )annoyed....furthermore, as you well know rGeist is a
) )subtle word, especially in any connection to German
) )philosophy.
)
)
) Yes indeed. I've had a number of exchanges on that very topic on this
) list
) over the years.
)
)
) )In English, I believe that using the terms
) )"spirit" and "spiritual" can lead to confusion when
) )they are synonimous with "spectre" or "ghost", or that
) )panoply. In my reading, the intent in the German leans
) )closer to rGeist as the Mind
)
)
) Not for Rudolf Steiner in 1923! It sounds to me like you are still
) laboring
) under a series of misconceptions about the development of Steiner's
) theories
) and their relation to the legacy of German Idealism. For much of Hegel's
)
) work, for instance, "mind" is a more or less adequate rendering of
) "Geist"
) (though of course the several existing translations of the Phenomenology
)
) disagree on exactly this point); for Steiner's work after his
) theosophical
) turn, in contrast, "mind" is virtually always wrong. He meant *spirit*
) in
) the supernatural sense, and said so over and over again.
)
)
) )"ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen" thus could
) )equally be considered "is the most
) )mentally(spiritually) productive race"
) )this has a whole different ring than "is the most
) )spiritually creative race"
)
)
) It does? Why? I agree with Akua on this point, and I'd be very
) interested to
) hear what you think this difference means. To my ears, "spiritually
) productive" in the context of Steiner's sentence would make the whole
) passage even more egregious, not less so. For what it's worth, one of my
)
) anthroposophist interlocutors once recommended translating the sentence
) as
) follows: "The white race is the race oriented toward the future, the
) race
) that is working creatively with the spirit." I have no qualms with that
) translation, and it shows that the passage is patently racist. This
) would
) still be the case if we replaced "creatively" with "productively". Do
) you
) disagree?
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
) http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:46:45 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Critic's Dictionary
Hi Roger,
A very interesting question! Since I'm not supposed to make fun of your
reading skills, perhaps I could simply suggest that you take another look at
my post from a few days ago, containing my translation of the sentence in
question. Here is how it reads: "The Negro race does not belong in Europe,
and it is of course quite absurd that this race is now playing such a large
role in Europe." As you can see, I do not use the word "disgrace" here. But
I have used it before in the same context (for example, at the openwaldorf
forums), and perhaps that is what you were thinking of. I agree with Akua
that "disgrace" is not an adequate rendering of the term, and that's exactly
why I changed it. As it happens, one of my other anthroposophist detractors,
Peter Normann Waage, once translated "Unfug" as "beastliness" in one of his
replies to me. To my ear, "disgrace" stands somewhere between "absurd" and
"beastliness" as far as inflammatory words go, don't you agree?
More to the point, how exactly would this particular choice of words, in
your view, affect the inflammatory nature of Steiner's sentence? Let's
stipulate that Steiner's use of "Unfug" in this instance carries the meaning
"mischief", probably the least censorious meaning in its range of possible
meanings. The sentence would then read "The Negro race does not belong in
Europe, and it is of course nothing but mischief that this race is now
playing such a large role in Europe." I'm afraid I don't see how that would
make the statement any less inflammatory. Perhaps you could explain your
reasoning here?
Regards,
Peter S.
)Hello Peter
)While you're on the subject of translation I would be interested to know
)which dictionary translates the German word “Unfug” into the English
)word “disgrace”. ‘The Waldorf Critic’s Dictionary of Inflammatory Words
)and Phrases’, I suspect.
)Regards Roger
)
)"Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und es ist natürlich nur ein
)Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große Rolle spielt."
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:08:00 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: translations
Hi Chris, you wrote:
)However, I must continue to disagree with the characterization of me
)that has me as a "Steiner defender". I agree with the General
)Semanticists in saying that what Woden101-July15th said or did in
)particular ought not be extrapolated and taken as a definitive guide for
)making assertions about the whole person; making a person who has
)challenged criticism or defended "a defender"...In more ordinary
)language I believe that this assumes and extrapolates too much.
What I had in mind was the particular version of yourself that occasionally
manifests on this list. By my reading, that version of Chris writes
primarily as a defender of Steiner. Do you mean that I have misunderstood
most of what you have posted here?
)I've
)gone to pains before belaboring this point, so I won't go much further.
Back in June you were trying to argue the very opposite regarding Steiner
(you wrote, among other things, "I guess that I would have to be mightily
convinced that Steiner could really have changed so much."). Have you now
shifted your position?
)Suffice it to say that just because I find Steiner interesting, as a
)one-time conventional thinker turned occultist (with a depth of
)orientation within the Western Esoteric tradition), does not mean that I
)believe or accept as valid everything he said, let alone appoint myself
)as a "Steiner defender". I think that his writings which are directly
)related to:
)a) epistemology
)b) Occult method
)and
)c) direct results of the above
)can offer useful, if highly unusual, perspective.
)
)At the very least I support the idea that one can bring over scientific
)and strict thinking into the realm of spiritual experience. However,
)this is not something which, quite frankly, can be adequately dealt with
)in ordinary discourse as prevails here, with ordinary assumptions,
)ordinary theories, and ordinary stand-points for current day Americans.
)If this sounds like "Anthropop" chauvinism so be it.
No, it just sounds like bad philosophy to me.
)Every specialized
)discipline implicitly does this (as an aspiring scientist I know very
)well). People might object that "spiritual" is synonomous with "purely
)subjective" or "pure speculation", so be it. (and I would argue, along
)with many other people, that such is demonstrably not the case anyways).
)The hypocrisy of such assertion, in any case, is that the same sort of
)people might be enthused about Stephen Hawking, for instance, whose
)discipline, cosmology, is about as purely speculative as it gets. One
)doesn't expect to be able to just understand complex, non-linear,
)dynamical systems without hard effort and training in a certain way of
)thinking about things. The same with Fundamental Ontology.
)
)I've gotten off-track though. The case of Steiner is not yet closed for
)me, that's all. Perhaps the difference between me and you is that my
)Buddhist orientation has me view things spiritual as things 'to do',
)firstly, and not at all necesarily things to believe.
That is very similar to my own orientation (I'm strongly influenced by
several strands of Buddhist thought, though I'd make a very bad Buddhist).
But it is quite different from Steiner's mature stance. That's sort of the
whole point, isn't it?
)I'll concede right
)here and now that I do not accept the validity of Steiner's racial
)arguments, as I've seen here, for instance.
Glad to hear it.
I'll have the German stuff in a couple days.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Pete Karaiskos
wrote:
"Nonetheless, our school hired this teacher,
discovered the nature of her son's behavior (by testing on the children
of our school during afterschool care)"
What does that mean? You don't mean that she used the children to test whether or not her son is a sexual predator do you?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:29:25 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
Hi Walden,
)I have bumped into this quote a few times now at Waldorf sites:
)
)"With the rise to power of Hitler's government, a life and death struggle
)began for the German Waldorf Schools. There was continuous harassment, and
)finally they were closed with the simple explanation that there was no
)place
)in Nazi Germany for any school that educated individuals to think for
)themselves."
)
)Does anyone have information regarding the source of this type of quote?
)Was this "simple explanation" ever documented?
It's probably taken from one of the reports filed by the
anti-anthroposophist faction of the Nazis. That faction did indeed denounce
Waldorf education as excessively individualistic. I'd like to say that this
is only half the story, but in fact it's more like one sixteenth of the
story. For starters, the Waldorf leadership themselves routinely trumpeted
Waldorf's non-individualist orientation and boasted about how well the
schools prepared pupils for joining the Volksgemeinschaft, the Nazis' term
for the German national community. And the anti-anthroposophist faction
within the party faced a powerful lobby of pro-anthroposophist Nazis, who
supported and promoted Waldorf education along with biodynamic farming and
other anthroposophist endeavors. The anti-anthroposophist faction didn't
gain the upper hand until the middle of 1941, more than eight years into the
Nazis' twelve-year reign, and the last Waldorf school in Germany wasn't shut
down until then (while several Waldorf schools continued to operate in other
countries under Nazi occupation). Above all, as the quote Barnaby relayed
indicates, there was a significant measure of pro-Nazi sentiment among
leading anthroposophists during the Third Reich, and the Waldorf movement
was no exception in this regard. Within active Waldorf circles, the two
chief tendencies were an enthusiastically Nazi grouping, who saw Waldorf
pedagogy as especially compatible with the goals of the Third Reich, and a
larger accomodationist grouping that attempted to convince Nazi educational
authorities (who looked askance at all private schools) that Waldorf was an
acceptable alternative to state schooling. Interestingly, the main Waldorf
journal at the time was somewhat more forthright in its appreciative
comments about various aspects of National Socialism than other German
anthroposophist periodicals were (though they were outdone, of course, by
the chief biodynamics journal, which praised Hitler even after the start of
the war). Also, a large proportion of Waldorf faculty joined the Nazi
teachers' association at a relatively early stage. As usual, the passage
above reveals that anthroposophically derived projects still have a long way
to go in coming to terms with their own past.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Polemic
What struck me as weird was that our daughter's two class sponsors treated her like a criminal when they found out she had sung an off-color song in the company of two classmates during recess yet, on another occasion, one of them used the f****** word and the s*** word in a conversation with her and some other students. Being a teenager, our daughter did not fail to notice the hypocrisy.
momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacpgdb1dkiGbNGmrya/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, have your Waldorf teachers seem the way you talk? I'd be surprised if they thought your choice of expletives was OK.
Then again, during our years at a Waldorf school, I ran into more than one Anthroposopher who spoke to parents and in public in that high, sweet, intentionally musical voice that I believe they actually teach in Waldorf training, but switched to a more normal tone and colloquial language once they relaxed with you, or if you caught them in an unguarded moment. It struck me as plain weird.
Mike, using curse words and hurling accusations does not do much to advance your arguments. In fact, it makes you look uninformed. Instead of offering facts and reasoned debate, you offer expletives. Not very effective.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Lombard Miller
Sent: Jul 22, 2004 8:37 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Polemic
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacpgdb1dkiGb1IpcOa/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
on 7/22/04 5:42 AM, Mike Helsher at mhelsher ne.rr.com wrote:
) ~~~And who the fuck decides what those limits are for me? You maybe?
) That's a crock of shit man. Mainly because you are implying that your idea
) of responsibility should have merit to me - As of right now, it doesn't.
) ~~~Fuck you again! Responsibility for what? Not agreeing with your seemingly
) more well informed opinion. Or not expressing my ideas in a way that rubs
) with the way that you express yours? try this one on for your self:
) ~~~I'd say that you've been doing allot of supposing about what
) Anthroposophy is.
) ~~~Now your really blowing it. Does the term *subtle* or
) *passive-aggressive* have any meaning to you? Or do you just like sucking up
) to a kindred intellect?
) ~~~You say "counterattack" above. Does the idea of "truth and wisdom" mean
) that we sit on our asses and let some ignorant intellectual espouse about
) something that he really only knows what he wants to know about.
) Fuck that!
) Some do listen, some ignore it, some see it and hope some idiot doesn't
) interpret it like that, and maybe do there best to see that people don't.
)
) ~~~It's nice to have an interest in something that you really don't know
) anything about, isn't it?
Sharon: The other day when Servant of the Merciful suggested that he thought
he had some tips for reform in Anthroposophy I chuckled to myself and
withheld comments thinking, "he might just be what Anthroposophy needs". But
now I'm brought back to reality, so good luck Abd, a Muslim reforming
Anthroposophy? Fat chance, Eugene Schwartz, an Anthroposophist, got fired
for trying to be open.
Hmmmm, if I were a prospective parent I'd frown upon Mike's language. I
certainly expect more restraint from a spiritual person traveling a
spiritual path.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacoW6b1dkiGb1IpcOf/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacoW6b1dkiGbNGmryf/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 18:12:11 +0800
From: "Eastwinds" (eastwinds pacific.net.sg)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and the Nazi era
Dear Sir,
I am writing a 4000 word essay to critique on Steiner and waldorf education.
Can you help me by telling the revelant sources that I should read up?
THank you,
Carrie from Singapore
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGbNNrJTa/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Walden,
)I have bumped into this quote a few times now at Waldorf sites:
)
)"With the rise to power of Hitler's government, a life and death struggle
)began for the German Waldorf Schools. There was continuous harassment, and
)finally they were closed with the simple explanation that there was no
)place
)in Nazi Germany for any school that educated individuals to think for
)themselves."
)
)Does anyone have information regarding the source of this type of quote?
)Was this "simple explanation" ever documented?
It's probably taken from one of the reports filed by the
anti-anthroposophist faction of the Nazis. That faction did indeed denounce
Waldorf education as excessively individualistic. I'd like to say that this
is only half the story, but in fact it's more like one sixteenth of the
story. For starters, the Waldorf leadership themselves routinely trumpeted
Waldorf's non-individualist orientation and boasted about how well the
schools prepared pupils for joining the Volksgemeinschaft, the Nazis' term
for the German national community. And the anti-anthroposophist faction
within the party faced a powerful lobby of pro-anthroposophist Nazis, who
supported and promoted Waldorf education along with biodynamic farming and
other anthroposophist endeavors. The anti-anthroposophist faction didn't
gain the upper hand until the middle of 1941, more than eight years into the
Nazis' twelve-year reign, and the last Waldorf school in Germany wasn't shut
down until then (while several Waldorf schools continued to operate in other
countries under Nazi occupation). Above all, as the quote Barnaby relayed
indicates, there was a significant measure of pro-Nazi sentiment among
leading anthroposophists during the Third Reich, and the Waldorf movement
was no exception in this regard. Within active Waldorf circles, the two
chief tendencies were an enthusiastically Nazi grouping, who saw Waldorf
pedagogy as especially compatible with the goals of the Third Reich, and a
larger accomodationist grouping that attempted to convince Nazi educational
authorities (who looked askance at all private schools) that Waldorf was an
acceptable alternative to state schooling. Interestingly, the main Waldorf
journal at the time was somewhat more forthright in its appreciative
comments about various aspects of National Socialism than other German
anthroposophist periodicals were (though they were outdone, of course, by
the chief biodynamics journal, which praised Hitler even after the start of
the war). Also, a large proportion of Waldorf faculty joined the Nazi
teachers' association at a relatively early stage. As usual, the passage
above reveals that anthroposophically derived projects still have a long way
to go in coming to terms with their own past.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGbNNrJTf/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1428
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By pkcompany netzero.net
Prospective Waldorf parents: read this
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Disillusioned future Waldorf teacher vs. arro
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
[NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America announces general
secretary appointme
By dan dandugan.com
[NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of
natural remedies co
By dan dandugan.com
[NNA] Bank has staying power without maximizing profit - Basle
Freie Gemeinscha
By dan dandugan.com
Re: [NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of
natural remedie
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: [NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of natural remedies
By fiona_study yahoo.co.uk
NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of natural
remedies co
By lioncell gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 13:59:59 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos
) wrote:
)
)
) "Nonetheless, our school hired this teacher,
) discovered the nature of her son's behavior (by testing on the children
) of our school during afterschool care)"
)
)
)
) What does that mean? You don't mean that she used the children to test
) whether or not her son is a sexual predator do you?
)
My inference was that the school knew for some time that this boy was
exhibiting this type of behavior (the school's awareness and timeline is
documented) and nonetheless did little to stop this boy from interacting
with the children in the afterschool care program. The 11 acres of
school grounds offered ample opportunities for this boy to solicit
groups of children into play structures and other areas that were hidden
from view or attention of the afterschool care staff. There, I am told,
he held his own classes.
Please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing but concern for this boy
who very much needs help but, due to the Waldorf environment and the
inherent deception therein, I feel he is unlikely to get it any time
soon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: Prospective Waldorf parents: read this
Deborah, my wish would be that all prospective Waldorf parents read your reply to my post. It made me weep.
Warmest wishes,
Margaret
Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com) wrote:
Margaret Sachs
wrote:
"The irony was that the incident happened while the girl was under school "supervision." I put the word in quotation marks for the following reason: Unknown to us and this girl's parents, the sleeping arrangements for the students apparently involved no separation of boys and girls. Students told me they slept in sleeping bags, in one group, out in the open under the night sky. The two female "chaperones" (class sponsors) slept inside a tent, leaving the part-time male teacher with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior as the only adult outside with the children."
That sounds eerily like an incident involving the Pleasant Ridge Waldorf school in Viroqua. A couple, who were PRWS parents and have since left the area, were told after the fact that a Waldorf parent whose daughter was by human services pulled out of the school when she talked about the sexual activity he was engaging in with her - she was in third grade at the time as I recall - was the adult chaperone on an overnight school trip. The couple I spoke with were appalled. They learned of the accusations against this man while sitting in a meeting at the school. They were new to the school and were having trouble figuring out exactly what the other parents and administrators were talking about, because it was being spoken of in bits and pieces. When they were leaving the building, one of the other parents approached them and said, "I suppose you are wondering what all that was about." and then proceeded to tell them. They asked me to find out more for them via courthouse records,
etc., which was impossible because of the legal confidentiality involved in cases concerning minor children. This couple was very concerned, not just for their own children's safety, but for the safety of the girl who was still living with the father for at least 1/2 of the week (with the other 1/2 being with the mother) and for the safety of her siblings and other neighborhood children. It was because of that incident and others involving the downright nastiness directed towards one of their sons when they demanded that he be placed in a classroom with a different teacher that led them to leave their area. This couple are rather devout Christians and obviously not people who would fit into a Waldorf mold. To this day, the local Waldorfers get very defensive about this and the mother is still very attached to that community. When the couple I've referred to directly asked the mother about the situation, she became extremely defensive and, in essence, called her own daughter a
liar.
Another incident that concerned a lot of other people involved a class trip to a local park several years ago. One of the young girls was allowed to place her tent well away from the others and near the woods. This park is known as a place where people hang out and/or get drunk and the park police generally disappear after 10pm when the park closes. That night the young girl was pulled from her tent by two men, who turned out to have sexual assault histories, and it was her screaming that woke up the "chaperone." When I spoke with the chaperone, whose own daughter was at the overnight, about the incident, she appeared to have no understanding of how she was responsible for that girl's safety and that she had no role in what happened or nearly happened.
"Back to the issue of creating a gap between student and parents. Another ex-Waldorf parent told me the following story about her son's experience as a Waldorf high school student: The boy's two class sponsors told the students that they needed to make an appointment to confide a secret, something they had not told anyone, not even their parents."
That is such cultist behavior; it has to do with control over another. When we first moved here we were immediately targeted by the local Waldorfers as people to be "love-bombed" into their fold. Also, almost immediately my child was told to keep secrets, particularly as pertained to what some of their men were doing with young children. It was the Waldorf children and not their parents who warned my child about which men and which woman to stear clear of. Some of the men are outright sexual predators and some of them and the one woman are what is referred to as covert sexual predators. I directly confronted one of them and he with the support of the local Waldorf community vehemently defended his behavior. The Waldorf children were told to stay away from my child, whose was directly told by one of their parents that she was going to be "banned" from the local food co-op because "You keep going to your mom and telling her everything that's going on here."
However, the worst incident involved the teacher of the local charter school that is covertly a Waldorf school, albeit a non-structured one. The teacher hasn't been trained in Waldorf, but she is extremely close to the Waldorf community, is highly secretive concerning what the students are doing (which as it turns out isn't much of anything) and we have no doubt that she will be sending her own children to Pleasant Ridge. This teacher knew that one of her students had been a victim of a sexual crime and that the student had become pregnant as a result of that crime. The teacher provided the name and number of an abortion clinic to the student who went to the clinic, got the abortion and nearly bled to death. (The hospital ER staff had to shut off the blood supply to the girl's uterus in order to stop the bleeding.) This was all done without the parent's knowledge and the teacher has never faced any negative consequences as a result.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGbNGmryf/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 11:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Disillusioned future Waldorf teacher vs. arrogan
I thought I was referring to Mike's claims rather than his personality but I sincerely apologize to Mike and everyone else. I agree that communication is paramount here and no one should have to worry about whether their writing is going to be judged.
Margaret Sachs
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save up to 67% on Omaha Steaks + Get 6 FREE Burgers and a
FREE Cutlery Set + Cutting Board!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgpb1dkiGbNGmrya/OmahaSteaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret, you wrote,
)Mike, it seems that your English skills have deteroriated since you
)aced your college English back in the 80's. I know that there's a
)tendency when writing e-mails not to be fussy about certain aspects
)of writing but it strikes me that someone who is claiming to have
)aced college English would be careful not to make as many spelling,
)punctuation and grammar mistakes as you make in your post.
Please direct your arguments to the topic being discussed, not the
personality of your fellow subscriber. We try to ignore typos,
grammar, and spelling, as we want to encourage communication. English
is not the native language of many of our subscribers, and we don't
want them to be shy about posting for fear their writing will be
criticized.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGbNGmryf/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:56:21 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America announces general
secretary appointment
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA by any other means
may not be republished or redistributed without the prior consent of
News Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print extracts of NNA
content without permission for their own personal and non-commercial
use only.
For republication or redistribution please contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
Anthroposophical Society in America Announces General Secretary Appointment
By Douglas Miller
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN (NNA) - After a long search process, the General
Council of the Anthroposophical Society in America today announced
the appointment of Joan Almon of Maryland and MariJo Rogers of
California to share the office of general secretary for the American
Society.
In its announcement, the Council said that the new arrangement is a
result of a "wish to initiate a transformation of our society's
leadership toward a more collegial and collaborative approach."
Joan Almon will serve as International General Secretary with
responsibilities for international work, especially relations with
the Goetheanum; and MariJo Rogers will serve as National General
Secretary with responsibilities for domestic work, especially work
with members, groups and branches.
The Council also announced plans to increase its own membership.
Joan Almon has been serving as general secretary, and the Council
indicated that this new configuration will free her up to accomplish
much more on the international front than was possible before.
MariJo Rogers is committed to working with all groups, branches,
councils and organizations in the United States to explore healthy
ways to deal with differences, and constructive ways to support all
attempts to deepen and enliven the work of the Society.
The Council said that it still has many practical details to work out
regarding individual responsibilities, and methods of working
together both within the Council and together with the larger
community. However it looks forward to working with the membership in
America to implement this change.
END/dm
+ + + + +
040805-01EN
5 August 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:59:19 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of
natural remedies covered by health insurance
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA
by any other means may not be republished or
redistributed without the prior consent of News
Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print
extracts of NNA content without permission for
their own personal and non-commercial use only.
For republication or redistribution please
contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
German doctors and patients fight to have the
cost of natural remedies covered by health
insurance
By Cornelie Unger-Leistner
KARLSRUHE/BERLIN (NNA) - When they return from
their summer recess in September, the German
federal government and the Bundestag (German
parliament) will for the first time find
themselves confronted by legal action from a
united front of people impacted by the effects of
the National Health Plan Modernization Act on
alternative medicine. 70 doctors from the German
Central Organization of Homeopathic Physicians
(DZVhÄ) and more than 80 doctors from the
Association of Anthroposophical Physicians (GAÄD)
have brought a complaint before the Karlsruhe
bench according to "Gesundheit aktiv," a patient
organization that was able to mobilize 6,500
patients for a complaint in the German Federal
Constitutional Court.
The patients base their argument on the right to
choose, stating that the law deprives them of
financial coverage for alternative medications.
The doctors find that the act limits their
freedom to use different therapies, and thus
their right to exercise their profession in a
free way.
The Bundestag passed the law at the beginning of
the year, and under its guidelines
non-prescription medications are not covered by
the National Health Plan. With their almost
imperceptible side-effects, about 90% of all
alternative medications are affected, including
anthroposophical remedies (only 5% of
anthroposophical remedies require a prescription).
The National Health Plan Modernization Act has
"taken the tools" from the 2,000 approved
National Health Plan doctors who work on the
basis of homeopathy; they have no recourse to
other medications, according to a press release
from the Central Organization of Homeopathic
Physicians. In their complaint, they state that
the question of whether medications require a
prescription is not a valid criterion for the
National Health Plan to use in deciding coverage,
since any registered and authorized medication
should be available to those who are critically
ill. In their press release, the Association of
Anthroposophical Physicians points out that
anthroposophical medicine is virtually excluded
from coverage. Anthroposophical medicine
(together with homeopathy and herbal medicine)
has been recognized since the 70's by the Civil
Code as having equal standing with main-line
medicine. "Lawmakers cannot approve
anthroposophical medicine as legal practice, and
then exclude its basic approach, its therapeutic
medications," wrote the doctors.
The consequences of the Modernization Act cited
in the complaints illustrate the absurd results
of the Bundestag's decision in the day-to-day
practice of medicine. Patients with asthma,
rheumatism, pneumonia, or neurodermatitis have to
pay for their own medications, while someone with
a cold sore does not, according to the press
release from the homeopathic physicians.
Initially, lawmakers intended to exempt natural
remedies from the exclusion of non-prescription
medications because these remedies make up only
1% of the plan's expenses.
The Modernization Act has had a devastating
effect on homeopathic and anthroposophical
medical practices in terms of covered
medications. In an interview with Mitteilungen
aus der anthroposophischen Arbeit, Dr. Hendrik
Vögler, a member of the executive council of the
Association of Anthroposophical Physicians,
indicated that about a third of his patients will
have to see if they can still afford these
remedies.
According to Prof. Rüdiger Zuck, the Stuttgart
attorney for all of the plaintiffs in Karlsruhe,
the class action suit by the anthroposophical
patient organization "Gesundheit aktiv"
represents the largest group ever to bring a case
before the German Federal Constitutional Court.
The organization's members have contributed more
that ¤ 250,000 (£165,000, US$ 300,200) to cover
the costs of the suit. Zuck has asked for a
temporary injunction from the Constitutional
Court, with the hope of taking the issue off the
table within two months. A final decision may
come in two to four years. The loss of coverage
would lead to "unbearable financial results" for
the plaintiffs from the patient organization;
several examples illustrate this point in their
complaint.
Four typical cases are cited to illustrate how
the new regulations affect chronically ill
patients who depend on anthroposophical remedies.
Anthroposophical medicine serves an especially
large number of the chronically ill, or patients
whom main-line medicine has pronounced to be
"untreatable"; these are often people unemployed
because of their disability, or low-income
retirees. There is exhaustive documentation of
the remedies' cost and of the patients' economic
situation. This is the basis of the request for
a temporary injunction by "Gesundheit aktiv." It
states that patients cannot be expected to carry
the cost of the remedies during the suit, which
may last several years. A decision on the
temporary injunction is expected within two
months.
Some lawmakers had warned against included
natural remedies even before the Modernization
Act was passed. Green Party member and
vice-president of the Bundestag, Antje Vollmer,
characterized the proposed regulations as "quite
alarming" in a February article in the Berlin
Tagesspiegel. She stated that they undermined
any attempt to strengthen patient autonomy:
"Herbal, homeopathic, and anthroposophical
medications will become luxury items available
only to those who can afford them." She pointed
to the danger that natural remedies could
gradually fade from view for doctors, "forced out
by the highly competitive pharmaceuticals market"
in a kind of economic war.
END/ung/dm
+ + + + +
040805-02EN
5 August 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:59:01 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Bank has staying power without maximizing profit - Basle
Freie Gemeinschaftsbank celebrates twenty years of existence
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA by any other means
may not be republished or redistributed without the prior consent of
News Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print extracts of NNA
content without permission for their own personal and non-commercial
use only.
For republication or redistribution please contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
Bank has staying power without maximizing profit
Basle Freie Gemeinschaftsbank celebrates twenty years of existence
The Freie Gemeinschaftsbank in Basle celebrated its twentieth
anniversary in July. The bank's work is not based on maximizing its
profits, yet it has become well established. Thirteen people now
work at its headquarters at Gerbergasse 30 in Basle, where they
oversee assets of 170 million CHF and trust investments of 45 million
CHF. Ursa Krattiger reports on the work of the bank, founded in
Dornach in 1984.
BASLE (NNA) - On 1 July, twenty years will have passed since the
Freie Gemeinschaftsbank's first customer came to the teller's window
in a small shopping area in Dornach. Its founding at that time was
controversial since it planned to make loans to non-profit,
sustainable, social, and ecological project rather than basing its
policy on maximizing profit. Despite the Banking Commission's
concerns about whether such a business policy could succeed, the bank
was successfully begun through the energetic efforts of its many
supporters.
The borrowers
Now, 20 years later, these concerns have vanished: the Freie
Gemeinschaftsbank is flourishing. At the end of May, 2004, its
assets amounted to just under 170 million Swiss francs, and in the
past twenty years it has supported projects with over 120 million
francs. It bases its loan decisions first and foremost on whether
the investment will lead to an improvement in the quality of life for
people, animals, and the environment. The largest loans have gone to
biodynamic agriculture (Demeter) and Bio Suisse's "Knospe"
businesses. Others borrowers are Rudolf Steiner schools and
kindergartens, institutions for therapeutic education and community
health, communally-organized cooperatives, alternative medical and
therapeutic institutions, community centres, old-age homes, business
and industry, and artistic initiatives.
The investment consultants
The investment consultants of the Freie Gemeinschaftsbank also have a
different focus: they seek out and find investment possibilities that
are ethically, socially, and ecologically acceptable. Thus the
bank's customers have survived the stock market collapse unscathed.
But it's not always easy to find alternatives. One aspect of the
Freie Gemeinschaftsbank is especially helpful here - the bank looks
for contact with people instead of financial operations. Its
principal concern is to create a consciousness for how money works,
and to make it clear that present-day interest and debt policies do
not lead to a humane use of money. Now - even twenty years later -
there is still ground to be broken, since the temptation to use money
to make even more money remains strong. Today, one can and must ask:
"Do you know whose work produces the interest you receive?" In the
area of trust investment funds, the Freie Gemeinschaftsbank
translates this into concrete terms by bringing investors and
borrowers into contact with each other. Thus the investor knows
exactly what and whom he is supporting.
Growth means "to flourish"
Of course, the Freie Gemeinschaftsbank wants to grow, but it has no
specific growth targets since it understands that "to grow" means "to
flourish". As a small bank, it must keep a sharp eye on its business
and hold its costs down. Increased government regulation and growing
data management expenses put big demands on a smart business policy.
At the same time, the bank wants to continue highlighting the theme
of how to work with money, and to make the point - no matter how
small the framework - that even in the world of finance there is
still a place for humanity.
END/ung/dm
www.gemeinschaftsbank.ch
Email: Markus.Jermann gemeinschaftsbank.ch, ChristofHatebur
gemeinschaftsbank.ch
Ursa Krattiger is head of the Swiss Anthropsophical Media Office
+ + + + +
Item reference number: 040805-03EN
Date: 5 August 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:24:56 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: [NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of
natural remedies co
While not being a big fan of pharmaceutical based health care (Michael
Moore's next film will touch on this), I am also skeptical of Anthro meds
and all alternative remedies. The criteria for the use of public funding
for health care should be pretty simple: Does it work?
Anecdotal evidence is cheap and easy. Have there been any independent
studies to prove the efficacy of Anthroposophic medicine?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:52:54 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fiona=20Steiner?= (fiona_study yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: [NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of natural remedies co
Hi dan,
I didn't realise exactly how much was going to be coming into my inbox. It's taking me forever to wade through the post to find other emails.
I had planned to get more involved but as i have started studying (not steiner ed by the way) over the last month i don't have the time to even read the posts let alone reply. And i don't want to waste peoples time going over old stuff.
But thank you for the new perspective. It has helped me look at the whole steiner system with a more open eye. And talking to others about PLANS etc has brought up a lot of different stories from people which i probably would not have heard or perhaps acknowledged otherwise.
And thanks to Dianne i think it was who sent me the links. Actually haven't even had time to get to those but they are printed off and in my "to read' folder.
best wishes
fiona
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGb7QT1Ua/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA
by any other means may not be republished or
redistributed without the prior consent of News
Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print
extracts of NNA content without permission for
their own personal and non-commercial use only.
For republication or redistribution please
contact NNA at:
admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
German doctors and patients fight to have the
cost of natural remedies covered by health
insurance
By Cornelie Unger-Leistner
KARLSRUHE/BERLIN (NNA) - When they return from
their summer recess in September, the German
federal government and the Bundestag (German
parliament) will for the first time find
themselves confronted by legal action from a
united front of people impacted by the effects of
the National Health Plan Modernization Act on
alternative medicine. 70 doctors from the German
Central Organization of Homeopathic Physicians
(DZVhÄ) and more than 80 doctors from the
Association of Anthroposophical Physicians (GAÄD)
have brought a complaint before the Karlsruhe
bench according to "Gesundheit aktiv," a patient
organization that was able to mobilize 6,500
patients for a complaint in the German Federal
Constitutional Court.
The patients base their argument on the right to
choose, stating that the law deprives them of
financial coverage for alternative medications.
The doctors find that the act limits their
freedom to use different therapies, and thus
their right to exercise their profession in a
free way.
The Bundestag passed the law at the beginning of
the year, and under its guidelines
non-prescription medications are not covered by
the National Health Plan. With their almost
imperceptible side-effects, about 90% of all
alternative medications are affected, including
anthroposophical remedies (only 5% of
anthroposophical remedies require a prescription).
The National Health Plan Modernization Act has
"taken the tools" from the 2,000 approved
National Health Plan doctors who work on the
basis of homeopathy; they have no recourse to
other medications, according to a press release
from the Central Organization of Homeopathic
Physicians. In their complaint, they state that
the question of whether medications require a
prescription is not a valid criterion for the
National Health Plan to use in deciding coverage,
since any registered and authorized medication
should be available to those who are critically
ill. In their press release, the Association of
Anthroposophical Physicians points out that
anthroposophical medicine is virtually excluded
from coverage. Anthroposophical medicine
(together with homeopathy and herbal medicine)
has been recognized since the 70's by the Civil
Code as having equal standing with main-line
medicine. "Lawmakers cannot approve
anthroposophical medicine as legal practice, and
then exclude its basic approach, its therapeutic
medications," wrote the doctors.
The consequences of the Modernization Act cited
in the complaints illustrate the absurd results
of the Bundestag's decision in the day-to-day
practice of medicine. Patients with asthma,
rheumatism, pneumonia, or neurodermatitis have to
pay for their own medications, while someone with
a cold sore does not, according to the press
release from the homeopathic physicians.
Initially, lawmakers intended to exempt natural
remedies from the exclusion of non-prescription
medications because these remedies make up only
1% of the plan's expenses.
The Modernization Act has had a devastating
effect on homeopathic and anthroposophical
medical practices in terms of covered
medications. In an interview with Mitteilungen
aus der anthroposophischen Arbeit, Dr. Hendrik
Vögler, a member of the executive council of the
Association of Anthroposophical Physicians,
indicated that about a third of his patients will
have to see if they can still afford these
remedies.
According to Prof. Rüdiger Zuck, the Stuttgart
attorney for all of the plaintiffs in Karlsruhe,
the class action suit by the anthroposophical
patient organization "Gesundheit aktiv"
represents the largest group ever to bring a case
before the German Federal Constitutional Court.
The organization's members have contributed more
that ¤ 250,000 (£165,000, US$ 300,200) to cover
the costs of the suit. Zuck has asked for a
temporary injunction from the Constitutional
Court, with the hope of taking the issue off the
table within two months. A final decision may
come in two to four years. The loss of coverage
would lead to "unbearable financial results" for
the plaintiffs from the patient organization;
several examples illustrate this point in their
complaint.
Four typical cases are cited to illustrate how
the new regulations affect chronically ill
patients who depend on anthroposophical remedies.
Anthroposophical medicine serves an especially
large number of the chronically ill, or patients
whom main-line medicine has pronounced to be
"untreatable"; these are often people unemployed
because of their disability, or low-income
retirees. There is exhaustive documentation of
the remedies' cost and of the patients' economic
situation. This is the basis of the request for
a temporary injunction by "Gesundheit aktiv." It
states that patients cannot be expected to carry
the cost of the remedies during the suit, which
may last several years. A decision on the
temporary injunction is expected within two
months.
Some lawmakers had warned against included
natural remedies even before the Modernization
Act was passed. Green Party member and
vice-president of the Bundestag, Antje Vollmer,
characterized the proposed regulations as "quite
alarming" in a February article in the Berlin
Tagesspiegel. She stated that they undermined
any attempt to strengthen patient autonomy:
"Herbal, homeopathic, and anthroposophical
medications will become luxury items available
only to those who can afford them." She pointed
to the danger that natural remedies could
gradually fade from view for doctors, "forced out
by the highly competitive pharmaceuticals market"
in a kind of economic war.
END/ung/dm
+ + + + +
040805-02EN
5 August 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGb7QT1Uf/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:46:57 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: NNA] German doctors and patients fight to have the cost of natural
remedies co
Definately an interesting subject matter.
Walden wrote:
While not being a big fan of pharmaceutical based health care (Michael
Moore's next film will touch on this), I am also skeptical of Anthro meds
and all alternative remedies. The criteria for the use of public funding
for health care should be pretty simple: Does it work?
Akua:
Actually Germany does not have a National Health Care system as England
has for example, instead everyone ought to have health insurance
covering the necessary expenses. There had been complaints about the
German health care system before as everywhere else but these complaints
have increased tremendously since January and that had very little to do
with homoepathic or anthroposophical medicine. From what I gathered it
does not work. Poor people will be very hestitant to go to their GP
because of the expenses it involves. Chronically ill patients may not
receive adequate treatment no longer.
Walden again:
Anecdotal evidence is cheap and easy. Have there been any independent
studies to prove the efficacy of Anthroposophic medicine?
Not that I know of. Interestingly the article does not mention this
critical issue. Every medical remedy needs to be tested extensively
before it is approved of. We need not discuss the problems testing and
approval might involve, thing is neither homoepathic nr anthroposophical
remedies need to undergo this kind of process, with no independent
assessment of their efficacy available they are somewhat outside the
regular medical approvement system, yet health insurances covered the
expenses of these kind of remedies since the 70s if I remember right.
NNA / Cornelie Unger-Leistner:
The patients base their argument on the right to choose, stating that
the law deprives them of financial coverage for alternative medications.
The doctors find that the act limits their freedom to use different
therapies, and thus their right to exercise their profession in a free way.
Akua here:
The complaint saying the act limits a doctor's freedom to use different
therapies has been lodged by virtually every GP and specialist, not just
those who base their work on homoepathic or anthroposophical principles.
NNA:
The Bundestag passed the law at the beginning of the year, and under its
guidelines non-prescription medications are not covered by the National
Health Plan.
Akua:
The law was passed last year and enacted 1st January 2004. Not just
non-prescription medications re no longer covered, the same also applies
to various pain treatments etc.
NNA:
The consequences of the Modernization Act cited in the complaints
illustrate the absurd results of the Bundestag's decision in the
day-to-day practice of medicine. Patients with asthma, rheumatism,
pneumonia, or neurodermatitis have to pay for their own medications,
while someone with a cold sore does not, according to the press release
from the homeopathic physicians. Initially, lawmakers intended to exempt
natural remedies from the exclusion of non-prescription medications
because these remedies make up only 1% of the plan's expenses.
Akua:
The problem is that patients suffering from asthma, rheumatism,
pneumonia or neurodermitis who seek homoepathic or anthroposophical
treatment need to cover the expenses themselves, part of that was
already the case before the enactment of the Modernization Act. Those
who seek conservative pharmaceutical treatment are also affected by the
act, simply because seeking the cheapest alternative available some of
the medication is no longer covered. This particularly affect patients
who have encountered difficulties with certain medications, either due
to side effects or efficacy which differs from patient to patient. To
cite pneumonia as one of the illnesses for which alternative treatment
should be covered remains more than questionable. My opinion!
Patients with a plain sore cold cannot expect their health insurance to
cover the expenses either, only those who develop a (secondary)
infection such as tonsilitis, sinusitis, otitis media etc get a
prescription their respective health insurance will cover. Every patient
from 18 onwards needs to pay a fee ranging from EUR 5 - 10 for each
medication anyway.
NNA:
The Modernization Act has had a devastating effect on homeopathic and
anthroposophical medical practices in terms of covered medications. In
an interview with Mitteilungen aus der anthroposophischen Arbeit, Dr.
Hendrik Vögler, a member of the executive council of the Association of
Anthroposophical Physicians, indicated that about a third of his
patients will have to see if they can still afford these remedies.
Akua:
Interesting indeed. According to my knowledge Elis Huber, 12 years head
of the Berlin 'Aerztekammer' (medical association), now manager of the
Anthroposophical health insurance Securvita was heavily involved in the
making of this new act, he definately remains to be one of its most
prominent professional proponents. The interest of poor patients never
seemed to be an issue until it came to the coverage of homoepathic and
anthroposophical remedies.
NNA:
Some lawmakers had warned against included natural remedies even before
the Modernization Act was passed. Green Party member and vice-president
of the Bundestag, Antje Vollmer, characterized the proposed regulations
as "quite alarming" in a February article in the Berlin Tagesspiegel.
She stated that they undermined any attempt to strengthen patient
autonomy: "Herbal, homeopathic, and anthroposophical medications will
become luxury items available only to those who can afford them." She
pointed to the danger that natural remedies could gradually fade from
view for doctors, "forced out by the highly competitive pharmaceuticals
market" in a kind of economic war.
Akua:
More than enough people have warned against this act in general. Poor
and chronically ill patients will definately be the most severely
affected and to my understanding that's no accident. A poor individual
who may suffer from pneumonia or another serious illness and is unable
to cover the necessary expenses might receive help (too) late and/or
(therby) increase the costs considerably. Some patients who were still
able to work will no longer be able to do so. In a way short sighted but
as I said no accident as such.
The article somehow fails to mentin that a considerable number of the
Greens who currently are part of the German federal govt. happen to be
anthroposophists themselves or at least sympathizers. Individuals active
within the legal initiative may therefore not be in direct opposition to
those who were involved in the making of this act (Gesundheitsreform).
Anthroposophist support is easily visible in other fields, for example
biodynamic farming etc.
Expectation were high when the Greens became part of the German govt,
most expected them to be the most social they could think of. Most of
these who welcomed German Greens and put a whole heap of trust in them
now feel betrayed, the cited act only being one of a number of similar
moves (the other major one being connected to employment regulations and
unemployment benefits) affecting millions of people living in Germany,
the unemployed or those otherwise living at the periphery being the
worst hit.
Otto Schily, an anthroposophist himself, formerly a member of the
Greens, now a member of the Social Democrats, curently German
Innenminister (Home Secretary / Secretary of the Interior), recently had
the brilliant idea to call for the building of camps for those seeking
political asylum. Not in Germany or Europe, no, in Northern Africa. Some
opinions polls claim that up to 50% of the German population is in
favour of such camps. I do not want to comment on German politics as
such but wanted to document one or two of the other issues involved.
The act the article cites definately is the source of criticism and it
remains to be seen what the long term effects will be. Homoepathic and
anthroposophical remedies/treatment are not the major ingredient of due
criticism and in my view should not be anyway.
Akua
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1429
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
Re: a Waldorf graduate's Biography
By dan dandugan.com
Steiner on "Arabism"
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:02:20 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and the Nazi era
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ...there was a significant measure of pro-Nazi sentiment among
) leading anthroposophists during the Third Reich, and the Waldorf
) movement
) was no exception in this regard.
Maybe the list has it before, but perhaps this quote from an unusually
straightforward anthroposophist, Tom Mellet, gives us a clue about why
this was so:
) In many conversations I had with Rev. Carl Stegman in 1980-81, he spoke
) about the importance Steiner put on the year 1933. Not only would it see
) the beginning of the return of the Etheric Christ, but that it would
) also see the beginning of a movement that could be styled the
) Doppelgaenger or Double of anthroposophy. Rudolf Steiner did not live to
) see 1933, but Carl Stegman carried Steiner's warnings to that year, and
) he recalled that many people, including many anthroposophists of that
) time, actually considered Adolf Hitler to be a Michaelic figure and that
) Hitler's rise to power in Germany in that year was the sign of Christ's
) return in the etheric.(
http://www.antronet.se/mellett/double1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 20:28:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: a Waldorf graduate's Biography
Another quotation from *Ingredients for the Making of a Woman* by
Suzanna Saumarez.
When she was in kindergarten:
*** start quotation (p. 24)
It is the Advent festival. A soft path of moss and pine lies at our
feet, spiralling inwards, inviting and twinkling with the crystals
that lie amongst the greenery like stars. The School hall is dark,
save for the one candle that shines in the centre of the spiral. In
my hand I hold an apple, with a dip candle that I have made in
Kindergarten stuck into it. I await my turn with the other quiet
children and then walk slowly into the spiral, I light my candle in
the centre and walking slowly back I place it with reverence amongst
the greenery. Eventually the whole green spiral shines with the light
of everybody's candles. I am conscious of being part of a ceremony
for the first time, and outside I feel the cold of winter-time.
*** end quotation
[Saumarez, Suzanna. Ingredients for the Making of a Woman. Princeton,
NJ: Xlibris Corporation, 2003.]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:24:14 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Steiner on "Arabism"
Abd, have you read the essay in "Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts"
where Steiner discusses the influence, in his opinion negative, of
Arabian thought on Europe?
"To gain some light upon these facts of modern history, let us look
back into the time when the old Grecian wisdom had to retreat before
the power of Rome, when Rome had accepted Christianity. When the last
Greek Schools of the Philosophers were closed by the Roman Emperor,
the last custodians of the ancient Knowledge too departed from the
regions in which European spiritual life was henceforth to evolve.
They found a haven in the Academy of Gondishapur in Asia, to which
they now became attached. This was one of the centres of learning in
the East where through the deeds of Alexander the tradition of the
ancient Knowledge had been preserved.
"The ancient Knowledge was living on there in the form which
Aristotle had been able to give to it. But in the Academy of
Gondishapur it was also taken hold of by that Oriental spiritual
stream which we may describe as Arabism. Arabism in one aspect of its
nature, is a premature unfolding of the Spiritual Soul. Through the
soul-life working prematurely in the direction of the Spiritual Soul,
the possibility was given in Arabism for a spiritual wave to go
forth, extending over Africa to southern and western Europe, and
filling certain of the men of Europe with an intellectualism that
should not properly have come until a later stage. In the seventh and
eighth centuries, southern and western Europe received spiritual
impulses which ought to have come only in the age of the Spiritual
Soul.
"This spiritual wave was able to awaken the intellectual life in man,
but not the deeper founts of experience whereby the soul penetrates
into the world of Spirit.
"And now, when in the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries man exercised
his faculty of Knowledge, he could but reach down to those levels of
the soul where he did not yet impinge upon the spiritual world.
"Arabism, entering into the spiritual life of Europe, held back the
souls of men, in Knowledge, from the Spirit-world. Prematurely it
brought that intellect into activity which was only able to apprehend
the outer world of Nature."
The full text is on-line at:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA026/English/RSP1973/GA026_c27.html
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1430
-- Topica Digest --
RS in German on skin color and race
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner on skin color and race
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Steiner on "Arabism"
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Waldorf and the Nazi era
By pstaud hotmail.com
Google's ad policy
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:48:09 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RS in German on skin color and race
As promised, here are the original passages from Rudolf Steiner's 1923
lecture in Dornach on "Color and the Races of Humankind". For ease of
comparison, I will append my translations below as well. I very much
encourage Chris, Roger, Akua, and anybody else to point out any inaccuracies
or inflammatory word choices they discern in my rendering (and while we're
at it, I'd still be most interested in hearing from Roger some sort of
rationale for his previous claim along those lines -- surely you had a
reason for reaching the conclusion you did?) . It would be a very good thing
if someone more positively disposed toward Steiner's work could take the
time to prepare their own translation of these passages and post it here, so
that readers who do not know German could consider both versions. I would be
more than happy to mail a photocopy of the full lecture to anyone who would
like to undertake that project. The source for the following is Rudolf
Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde (Dornach 1993), Dritter
Vortrag: "Farbe und Menschenrassen", 3. März 1923, pp. 52-68.
"Nun haben wir aber außer dieser europäischen Hautfarbe noch vier
hauptsächliche andere Hautfarben. Und das wollen wir heute ein bißchen
betrachten, weil man eigentlich die ganze Geschichte und das ganze soziale
Leben, auch das heutige soziale Leben nur versteht, wenn man auf die
Rasseneigentümlichkeiten der Menschen eingehen kann. Und dann kann man ja
auch erst im richtigen Sinne alles Geistige verstehen, wenn man sich zuerst
damit beschäftigt, wie dieses Geistige im Menschen gerade durch die
Hautfarbe hindurch wirkt." (52)
[Note to Chris: As you can see, a passage like the above would not become
any less repellent if we understood "Geist" in the sense of "mind" or
"intellect".]
"Wir selber in Europa nennen uns die weiße Rasse. Gehen wir nach Asien
hinüber, so haben wir hauptsächlich in Asien die gelbe Rasse. Und wenn wir
nach Afrika hinübergehen, da haben wir die schwarze Rasse. Das sind auch die
ursprünglichen Rassen. Alles andere, was sonst noch in diesen Gegenden
liegt, beruht eben auf Einwanderung. Also wenn wir fragen: Was gehört zu
diesen Erdteilen für eine Rasse hinzu? – so müssen wir eben doch sagen: Zu
Asien gehört die gelbe Rasse, die Mongolen, die mongolische Rasse, und zu
Europa gehört die weiße Rasse oder die kaukasische Rasse, und zu Afrika
gehört die schwarze Rasse oder die Negerrasse. Die Negerrasse gehört nicht
zu Europa, und es ist natürlich nur ein Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine
so große Rolle spielt." (52-53)
"Sehen wir uns zunächst die Schwarzen in Afrika an. Diese Schwarzen in
Afrika haben die Eigentümlichkeit, daß sie alles Licht und alle Wärme vom
Weltenraum aufsaugen. Sie nehmen das auf. Und dieses Licht und diese Wärme
im Weltenraum, die kann nicht durch den ganzen Körper durchgehen, weil ja
der Mensch immer ein Mensch ist, selbst wenn er ein Schwarzer ist. Es geht
nicht durch den ganzen Körper durch, sondern hält sich an die Oberfläche der
Haut, und da wird die Haut dann selber schwarz. So daß also ein Schwarzer in
Afrika ein Mensch ist, der möglichst viel Wärme und Licht vom Weltenraum
aufnimmt und in sich verarbeitet. Dadurch, daß er das tut, wirken über den
ganzen Menschen hin die Kräfte des Weltenalls. Überall nimmt er Licht und
Wärme auf, überall. Das verarbeitet er in sich selber. Da muß etwas da sein,
was ihm hilft bei diesem Verarbeiten. Nun, sehen Sie, das, was ihm da hilft
beim Verarbeiten, das ist namentlich sein Hinterhirn. Beim Neger ist daher
das Hinterhirn besonders ausgebildet. Das geht durch das Rückenmark. Und das
kann alles das, was da im Menschen drinnen ist an Licht und Wärme,
verarbeiten. Daher ist beim Neger namentlich alles das, was mit dem Körper
und mit dem Stoffwechsel zusammenhängt, lebhaft ausgebildet. Er hat, wie man
sagt, ein starkes Triebleben, Instinktleben. Der Neger hat also ein starkes
Triebleben. Und weil er eigentlich das Sonnige, Licht und Wärme, da an der
Körperoberfläche in seiner Haut hat, geht sein ganzer Stoffwechsel so vor
sich, wie wenn in seinem Innern von der Sonne selber gekocht würde. Daher
kommt sein Triebleben. Im Neger wird da drinnen fortwährend richtig gekocht,
und dasjenige, was dieses Feuer schürt, das ist das Hinterhirn." (55)
"Daher ist Europa immer der Ausgangspunkt für alles dasjenige gewesen, was
nun das Menschliche so entwickelt, daß das zu gleicher Zeit mit der
Außenwelt in Beziehung kommt. Erfindungen sind in Asien sehr wenig gemacht
worden. Verarbeitet kann dann die Geschichte werden; aber Erfindungen
selber, wie gesagt, das, was durch die Erfahrung mit der Außenwelt
enstpringt, das können die Asiaten nicht machen." (59)
"Also dieses selbständige Denken, das der Europäer im Umgang mit der
Umgebung entwickelt, das haben die Asiaten nicht. Die Japaner werden daher
alle europäischen Erfindungen ausbilden; aber selber etwas ausdenken, das
werden die Japaner nicht." (59)
"Die Weißen sind eigentlich diejenigen, die das Menschliche in sich
entwickeln." (62)
"Und so ist es wirklich ganz interessant: Auf der einen Seite hat man die
schwarze Rasse, die am meisten irdisch ist. Wenn sie nach Westen geht,
stirbt sie aus. Man hat die gelbe Rasse, die mitten zwischen Erde und
Weltenall ist. Wenn sie nach Osten geht, wird sie braun, gliedert sich zu
viel dem Weltenall an, stirbt aus. Die weiße Rasse ist die zukünftige, ist
die am Geiste schaffende Rasse." (67)
And now my translations:
"One can only understand history and all of social life, including today's
social life, if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And
one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one
first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the color of their skin." (p. 52)
"We here in Europe call ourselves the white race. If we go over to Asia, we
have mostly the yellow race. And if we go over to Africa, there we have the
black race. Those are also the original races. Everything else living in
these regions is based on migration. Thus when we ask which race belongs to
which part of the earth, we must say: the yellow race, the Mongols, the
Mongolian race belongs in Asia, the white race or the Caucasian race belongs
in Europe, and the black race or the Negro race belongs in Africa. The Negro
race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that this
race is now playing such a large role in Europe." (pp. 52-53)
"Let us look first at the blacks in Africa. These blacks in Africa have the
peculiar characteristic that they absorb all light and all warmth from
space. They take it in. And this light and warmth cannot penetrate through
the whole body, because after all a person is always a person, even if he is
black. It does not penetrate through the whole body, but lingers on the
surface of the skin, and the skin itself thus turns black. So a black in
Africa is therefore a person who absorbs as much warmth and light as
possible from space and assimilates it within himself. In this way the
energies of the cosmos affect the whole person. Everywhere he takes in light
and warmth, everywhere. He assimilates it inside of himself. There must be
something there that helps him in this assimilation. Now you see, what helps
him in this assimilation is his rear-brain. In the Negro the rear-brain is
therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal cord. And this is
able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are inside a person.
Therefore everything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly
developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives,
powerful instincts. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. And because
he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body surface, in his skin,
his whole metabolism operates as if he were being cooked inside by the sun.
That is where his instinctual life comes from. The Negro is constantly
cooking inside, and what feeds this fire is his rear-brain." (p. 55)
"Europe has always been the starting point for everything that develops
humanity in relation to the external world. Very few inventions have been
made in Asia. They can assemble things, but as for inventions themselves,
that is, that which arises from experience with the external world, the
Asians cannot do this." (p. 59)
"This sort of independent thinking which Europeans develop in dealing with
their surroundings, the Asians do not have this. The Japanese will therefore
follow all the European inventions, but they will never think up something
on their own." (p. 59)
"The whites are the ones who actually develop humanity in themselves." (p.
62)
"Thus it is really very interesting: on the one hand there is the black
race, which is the most earthly. When this race goes toward the West, it
dies out. Then there is the yellow race, in the middle between the earth and
the cosmos. When this race goes toward the East, it turns brown, it attaches
itself too much to the cosmos and dies out. The white race is the race of
the future, the spiritually creative race." (p. 67)
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:19:03 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on skin color and race
Hi Walden, I've been meaning to get back to your question:
)Question: In your experience, is history often fraught with convenient
)mistranslations or omissions from one text to another - or are
)Anthroposophical *slips* an anomaly?
The practice certainly isn't unique to anthroposophists. Lots of
ideologically driven groups end up whitewashing their own founding texts,
and one of the major tasks involved in any attempt at historical
reconstruction is to compare existing versions of a specific publication
with the original documentary evidence, when possible. (Another important
approach is to review contemporaneous commentary from within the group in
question, which has been the focus of much of my research over the past year
-- I've been systematically working through anthroposophist periodicals from
the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, and found an enormous amount of material
on race and ethnicity.)
What makes this sort of pattern especially interesting in the case of
anthroposophy is that it is so strikingly at odds with anthroposophy's own
cultivated public image. For a particularly brazen example of a cleansed
translation of an important Steiner text, take a look at the Rudolf Steiner
Press edition of Steiner's book Universe, Earth and Man (London 1987); on
pages 88-89 you'll find a somewhat vague discussion of racial matters. The
same discussion is anything but vague in the original: Rudolf Steiner, Welt,
Erde und Mensch (Dornach 1983), pp. 106-107. The English version simply
omits all of the specific references to "the black race", "the Malayan
Race", "the Mongol race" and "the American Indians" as "degenerate races",
with no notice to the reader. I think this is one reason why so many
English-speaking Steiner fans are outraged when critics of anthroposophy
bring up Steiner's racial theories; it's simply beyond their frame of
reference. Though this, admittedly, doesn't help explain all those other
instances of misplaced indignation when Steiner fans who *do* know German
get upset about what they take to be the devious machinations of the
critics, instead of simply taking a look at Steiner's work itself, but
that's another story...
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:15:55 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 11:55 AM 8/5/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)And of course, my argument is that further, if they can "reimburse" they can
)certainly "sponsor" too, since you'll have removed the principle that says
)they can't pay for religious education.
Let me say it again. The state may not, in the U.S., pay for religious
education. It may pay for non-religious education, whether or not it
chooses to do so it a political question, not a constitutional one.
The question here is whether or not the state may reimburse a private
organization for providing non-religious services, in this case education.
I think the answer is yes. Now, if the state is prohibited from doing this
if and only if the organization is non-religious, this is, in fact,
discrimination on the basis of religion.
Again, to repeat. The state may not pay for religious education. But I'm
claiming that it can pay for non-religious education even if that education
is provided by a religious organization. In the scheme I proposed, the
reimbursement provided, through vouchers, would be below the cost of
*ordinary* education, thus making it unlikely that public funding would be
providing for *religious* education. Such a law could require, for example,
that schools must teach certain subjects, such as biology, including the
theory of evolution, to the extent that students at such schools could
perform as well as students publically education in tests regarding those
subjects.
If a school were, for religious reasons perhaps, of the opinion that the
theory of evolution was false, they would nevertheless be required to teach
it such that students could pass a test regarding the theory. They might
*also* teach that this theory is false. However, such teaching can tend to
backfire! Once students realize that you are feeding them a load of BS on
one subject, they tend to conclude that everything you teach is likewise BS.
)Abd:
) )State sponsorship of a religious activity is constitutionally prohibited.
) )State reimbursement of a religious entity for a non-religious expense
) )incurred by the entity in pursuit of a public benefit is not, as far as I
) )can tell, constitutionally prohibited.
Diana consistently fails or refuses to notice that it is an *activity* that
is being sponsored, in what I proposed, not a *school*. The activity being
sponsored is the teaching of a state-mandated curriculum, and schools would
be responsible, if they accept vouchers, for the *results*. This is
important because in the scheme I proposed, the reimbursement is designed
to be below the cost of education in public schools. Thus a school might
still use the funds to sponsor religious education simply by not teaching
the required curriculum, thus saving enough money to fund the religious
education that they desire to impart. Requiring accountability would make
this quite difficult to accomplish; if the school managed to do it, perhaps
the state would have something to learn about how they managed to be so
efficient!
It's impossible, I think, to make specific requirements about the exact
details of the educational process, without adding an expensive bureaucracy
and very intrusive supervision.
A system might even delay reimbursement until a school has had enough time
to prove its record of success in education. A school might even be
permitted to increase the delay if, for example, they subscribe to an
educational theory that delays certain aspects of education on the belief
that such education is more effective when begun later. But, of course,
this would be financially risky: if they were wrong about the theory, or
they failed to succeed for other reasons, there would be a much larger sum
at stake.
The risk in such a system would be primarily on the private schools and
secondarily on the parents. The public would not be risking anything more
than it already risks merely by permitting private education.
) Reimbursement for an expense is
) )*not* sponsorship, except of the specific activity for which reimbursement
) )is being paid.
)
)I disagree, I believe reimbursing people for it is sponsoring it.
)Your last sentence above, this claim rests on the assumption that the
)"specific activity" - education - is separable from the overall mission of
)the organization, which is religious.
It is separable in result, not in method. For example, if two schools
produce comparable test scores in mathematics, what could we say about the
quality of math education at those schools? If a religious school manages
-- in spite of time spent by teachers on religious subjects, which *does*
cost money -- to educate its students to a level comparable to that found
among public school students, could it not be said that the school has
provided a non-religious service, and could such a service not be
compensated by the state?
) The analogy to a computer programming
)service is not valid, it's not analogous to education or other human
)services (as in faith-based initiatives), which, in their delivery, are
)rarely disintwined from the philosophy and goals of the organization.
The goals of the organization and the goals of the government reimbursing
it for a service are not at all the same thing. The goal of the government,
with education, is the development of knowledge and skills in the student
population, and that knowledge and those skills are not specifically
religious in nature. A religious organization, if it imparts these
non-religious skills and this knowledge, has performed a secular service.
The difference is that it has performed this service in a religious
*environment.* What if there is a religious belief that is actually
conducive to education, that is, a school operating according to this
belief is *in reality* more successful in education, i.e. in developing
skills and imparting secular knowledge? In fact, this might even be
possible with regard to Waldorf education (but I certainly don't know that
it is).
The state would properly stay completely out of this issue, it would not
prefer a religious organization over a non-religious one, and there would
be, I expect, many non-religious schools that would take advantage of a
voucher system, possibly even more than there would be religious schools.
Religion just happens to be one factor that provides organizational motivation.
) A
)Catholic school is providing a Catholic education. If they didn't want to
)provide a Catholic education, they wouldn't bother running a school. It
)certainly isn't a money maker. It's done to promote the values and mission
)of the Catholic church, one of which is education of children according to
)Catholicism.
)(Just as Waldorf schools promote the values and mission of anthroposophy,
)one of which is to educate children according to anthroposophy.)
Now, the question. In providing that education, and assuming that they do
teach the same subjects taught in public schools, have they performed a
service for the state? Yes, they have served, presumably, their own goals,
but have they *also* served some of the goals of the state, and have they
relieved the state of the expense of serving those goals? My point is that
if they have, the religion is not legally relevant, they could be
reimbursed appropriately. Remember the word "appropriate," it conceals a
myriad of details. If the reimbursement were not "appropriate," it could
well amount to state sponsorship of religious education, which we agree is
unlawful here in the U.S.
By the way, Catholic schools, to my understanding, generally separate
religious education from secular education, and non-Catholic students don't
necessarily take the religion classes. That's one way to do it. Suppose
that a Catholic school hires a non-Catholic to teach mathematics. (I
believe that many do.) Is the mathematics education somehow "contaminated"
with Establishment Clause violation because it takes place in a school
facility provided by a religious organization?
I expect that attempting to define the *process* by which education takes
place as "religious" or "non-religious" is doomed to failure; rather,
looking at the results would provide a religion-neutral method of assessing
educational success, as measured by *secular* methods.
[deletions, as I've said, this does get tedious.]
)I have not seen you address the scenario where two or more different
)religious schools are competing for the same funding. (Please do not say
)this is far-fetched; there are 2 different religious schools within walking
)distance of my house.) Someone makes a decision which one will get funded.
)On what is it based? (assume they are equally competent, given things like
)test scores etc. which you have proposed as accountability criteria). How
)will you avoid the state openly favoring one religious group over another?
)Toss a coin?
No such decision would be made. It appears that Diana has not been reading
what I've actually written. The system proposed does not individually
assess schools; rather, it sets certain standards for schools. *Any* school
which meets certain minimum secular requirements could apply for
reimbursement. If we set aside the performance evaluation requirement
(which I would, in fact, propose be built into the system, the system I'd
actually support would not be as liberal as what I'm now going to state),
the reimbursement would be determined to be the amount that the state saves
by the fact that the student was educated at private expense.
So, assuming that both those schools would meet the requirements, *both*
would "get the funding." They would not be competing for the same funding,
*except* in the sense that they might be competing for *students.* And,
note, the more students that they have, the higher their expenses, other
factors being equal.
In other words, what Diana wrote would not at all be the case. There would
not be a "someone" who "makes a decision which one will get funded." Diana
is persisting in thinking of a system where the state sponsors schools,
and, presumably, the state can't afford to sponsor two schools, so it would
have to choose one. That is *not* what I'm proposing; Diana has confused
herself with her constant attempt to fuse sponsorship of a school with
reimbursement of a school for a specific activity.
) )I am in no way advocating that the separation of church and state be
) )abandoned. It is an important principle of American democracy. However, an
) )attempt is here being made to use this principle outside its proper
) )application.
)
)The reverse is true, the courts have ruled many times that religion is
)inappropriate in public schools.
Yes. *Public schools are state-sponsored, they cannot carry on or favor
religious activities. The extent to which they can *tolerate* such
activities is a live controversy, but sponsorship is not controversial.
)You are suggesting it is not very important to protect the principle, and
)that if there were violations here and there, it would be no big deal, we
)shouldn't worry about them, shouldn't fear that the violations would be too
)numerous or too egregious, or that anyone would care much, or *should* care
)much, as long as the students could answer carefully worded exam questions.
There should be no violation at all; the system I proposed does not violate
the separation of church and state, and I expect that, if it were tested,
it would pass muster before the courts.
)I stopped reading your post there :)
Thanks. This frees me from any temptation to respond....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:28:36 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on "Arabism"
At 02:24 AM 8/9/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Abd, have you read the essay in "Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts" where
)Steiner discusses the influence, in his opinion negative, of Arabian
)thought on Europe?
No. Interesting quote. As readers of this list know, I consider that,
whatever level of spiritual insight Steiner had, he also made many
mistakes, and gave his opinion, sometimes, based on insufficient
information. His knowledge of Islam was primitive.
I might note that, after repairing my computer from boot failure by
reinstalling the operating system (including a disk reformat), the computer
was reinfected with a W32.Korgo worm within a few minutes of connecting to
the Windows Update web site to update the OS files to prevent exactly such
infections.... Fortunately, HP had advised me to, as the first step,
download Norton Antivirus definitions, so the infection was quickly
detected and, of course, I promptly disconnected the computer from the
network. Or else my computer would have been a worm-spreading zombie itself.
The internet is a dangerous place.... if I look at my Zone Alarm logs, I
see a probable hostile probe of my computer every few minutes.
The complete process of recovery from what was may have been a botched hack
attempt in the first place has taken about two weeks.... (the symptom was
boot failure due to probably corruption of user/password files).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:57:55 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: eastwinds pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Waldorf and the Nazi era
Hi Carrie,
I am probably not the best person to ask for critical sources on Waldorf
education in general, since my research focuses on Steiner's racial and
ethnic theories and the history of anthroposophical entwinement with
right-wing political movements. But if you'd like sources specifically about
Waldorf during the Nazi era, I'd be happy to help. The three most relevant
are all in German (let me know if that doesn't do you any good): 1. Achim
Leschinsky, “Waldorfschulen im Nationalsozialismus”, in the Stuttgart
journal Neue Sammlung: Zeitschrift für Erziehung und Gesellschaft, vol. 23
no. 3 (1983). This was the first serious study of the topic. Leschinsky is a
prominent figure in alternative education circles in Germany, and his
article is quite critical of the behavior of much of the Waldorf movement
during the Third Reich. 2. A two-part article series on the same topic by
anthroposophist historian Norbert Deuchert in the anthroposophist journal
Flensburger Hefte; I'm afraid I can't find that copy of the journal at the
moment (must be in a box I haven't gotten to yet...), but if it sounds
worthwhile to you I can send you the information once I dig it up. 3. Uwe
Werner's book Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus (Munich
1999), which deals extensively with the Waldorf movement. Werner is chief
archivist at the Goetheanum, anthroposophy's world headquarters in
Switzerland. His book is tendentious and often unreliable (it's an apologia
for anthroposophist conduct during the Nazi era), but contains important and
useful material.
Please let us know what other sorts of sources would be helpful for your
essay.
Peter Staudenmaier
)From: Eastwinds (eastwinds pacific.net.sg)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Waldorf and the Nazi era
)Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 18:12:11 +0800
)
)Dear Sir,
)
)I am writing a 4000 word essay to critique on Steiner and waldorf
)education.
)
)Can you help me by telling the revelant sources that I should read up?
)
)THank you,
)Carrie from Singapore
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:12:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Google's ad policy
There's an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle examining
Google's policy of rejecting ads for anything "anti". Google rejected
ads from PLANS, changed their mind and allowed them, then changed
their mind again. PLANS currently advertises through the Overture
agency, which doesn't have that problem. Read the article at:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/09/BUGAD835EP1.DTL&type=tech
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1431
-- Topica Digest --
private schools are religious
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Steiner's insight
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:30:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: private schools are religious
There is an Australian Goverment report on private education which is
reported here
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/08/1091903445139.html
Here's a quote:
Between 1993 and last year, private school enrolments increased by more than
22 per cent, while government school numbers rose by 1.2 per cent. Much of
the growth in the non-government sector was in Christian and other religious
schools.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Play Love Hunt to win a $9000 holiday and find love!
http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mclovehunt/lovehunt.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:35:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner's insight
Abd wrote in response to Dan abot Steiner's opinions of Islam:
"No. Interesting quote. As readers of this list know, I consider that,
whatever level of spiritual insight Steiner had, he also made many
mistakes, and gave his opinion, sometimes, based on insufficient
information. His knowledge of Islam was primitive."
Peter F comments:
Abd points out that Steiner's knowledge of Islam was primitive. This did not
stop Steiner from making assertions about Islam.
Abd appears to agree with me that Steiner's understanding of topics in
science which Steiner felt he was able to make authoratitive assertions
about was less than adequate.
I find it hard to understand on what basis Abd thinks that Steiner had any
spiritual insight.
See you, peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1432
-- Topica Digest --
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Prospective Waldorf parents: read this
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Get a life!
By robituk yahoo.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:11:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
I wrote previously:
)And of course, my argument is that further, if they can "reimburse" they
)can certainly "sponsor" too, since you'll have removed the principle that
)says they can't pay for religious education.
Abd replies:
)Let me say it again. The state may not, in the U.S., pay for religious
)education.
Your argument apparently rests on the idea that not all the classes the
school is offering are "religious" even if the school is religious. But the
kids take part in the life of the school, some activities are religious and
some aren't, but the kids don't have a choice between them.
My son attends a Quaker school, and weekly Meeting (the Quaker worship
service) is mandatory, for everyone.
)Diana consistently fails or refuses to notice that it is an *activity* that
)is being sponsored, in what I proposed, not a *school*.
Of course it is a school being sponsored. We're talking about elementary and
high school education, where the curriculum is laid out, not a college
education where you pick and choose among electives. (And I notice suddenly
"sponsored" is an okay word with you.)
And the money can't be funneled to certain activities and not others, any
more than the kids can pick and choose. The money goes in the pot, a
religious school provides a religious education.
Heavens, why do you think religious schools even bother taking kids who
aren't of that religion? (I could see at least one obstacle to your scheme
removed if, for instance, Catholic schools always only took Catholic kids.)
They take others, at least in part, because they need the money.
True of Waldorf schools, certainly - they could never run just off
anthroposophic families. Outreach . . .
)If a religious school manages -- in spite of time spent by teachers on
)religious subjects, which *does* cost money -- to educate its students to a
)level comparable to that found among public school students, could it not
)be said that the school has provided a non-religious service,
Sure. But the kids had to sit still for the religious subjects too, and that
is impermissible with US tax money, Abd.
)The goals of the organization and the goals of the government reimbursing
)it for a service are not at all the same thing.
When the government is dispensing funds to an organization (whether this is
reimbursement or what you would call direct "sponsorship"), the government
is supporting and promoting the goals of the organization. In education (or
human services), this is unavoidable. This is not equivalent to producing a
manufactured good to specifications, or providing services like computer
programming, where it really doesn't matter who is doing it, the programming
comes out the same as long as the people providing the service are
competent.
Education is not like that. Education is organized according to a variety of
models and philosophies. Religious education has a unique flavor depending
on the religion. Catholic schools exist to educate children in Catholicism.
Honestly, this is so obvious I don't understand why we're debating it.
)The goal of the government, with education, is the development of knowledge
)and skills in the student population, and that knowledge and those skills
)are not specifically religious in nature. A religious organization, if it
)imparts these non-religious skills and this knowledge, has performed a
)secular service.
Yup. "Secular service," for instance, math class, at 10 a.m. Mass at 11 a.m.
But the child cannot leave after math class.
A child attending a religious school learns a lot about that religion, and
participates in the rituals of that religion. I have had a child in another
religious school post-Waldorf, a Quaker school, for 2 years now, and I can
say with certainty that my son understands the basics of the Quaker faith.
He has attended at least - let's see - approximately 30 per year, that would
be 60 Quaker Meetings since he started there. I am sure he understands more
about Quakerism than I do (in a "living way" as they would say in Waldorf).
:) His teacher last year was big on the history of Quakers in Philadelphia.
Teachers speak openly about their personal understanding of Quaker beliefs.
Particularly now, the Quaker peace teachings are an enormous part of the
life of the school. The school organizes various efforts against the Iraq
war and strongly encourages student participation. Nonviolence is perhaps
the central Quaker value and is discussed extensively in the classroom.
A big sign at the front entrance of the school says, "There is no way to
peace/Peace is the way." Just arriving on the school bus each morning, 180
days in the year, my child reads this sign. They mean for him to understand
and believe this, I can assure you. Do they often bring it up in a Spanish
class, or during soccer practice? Probably not.
)The difference is that it has performed this service in a religious
)*environment.*
Are you arguing that the environment is not part of the education? The
environment does not permeate and shape the education?
If you removed the Quaker "environment" at my son's school, it would not be
a Quaker school anymore. There is no Quaker math, or Quaker way to teach
foreign language, or Quaker science. (Although there is Quaker history.)
As once before (and risking ad hominem in my malicious way), your arguments
strike me as odd coming from someone with 6 children. When you write this
sort of thing you seem to be forgetting what you've said, at great length
here, you want for your own child. Either you don't really believe in this
sterile "contractor providing a service or supplying the state with a
product" model for education, where the environment is irrelevant, or you've
very little idea what a religious school even looks like - odd if you're so
interested in finding one! Again I suggest you visit some!
)there would be, I expect, many non-religious schools that would take
)advantage of a voucher system, possibly even more than there would be
)religious schools.
Oh, you've downgraded it from "most" to "many," presumably after reading my
post the other day indicating that voucher programs in the US are paying
money mostly to religious schools, probably 80-90%.
)By the way, Catholic schools, to my understanding, generally separate
)religious education from secular education, and non-Catholic students don't
)necessarily take the religion classes.
At the Catholic schools in our area they do. Religion class and weekly
attendance at Mass are mandatory for everyone. And no, it is not separate
from academic subjects. I remember helping my neighbor's third grader in
Catholic school, a few years ago, with his English assignments. He was
filling in the blanks in a workbook and every sentence was about Jesus.
)Suppose that a Catholic school hires a non-Catholic to teach mathematics.
)(I believe that many do.) Is the mathematics education somehow
)"contaminated" with Establishment Clause violation because it takes place
)in a school facility provided by a religious organization?
Interestingly, in most religious schools, math is usually just math (I
presume this is why you use the math example, since it is definitely not so
clear-cut with subjects like history). But in Waldorf, even math is shot
through with religious concepts. Reverencing of the "qualities" of numbers,
for instance, which is basically numerology.
But the real point is, even if math is usually just math, the non-Catholic
kid can't go home after math class, they have to stay all day.
)I expect that attempting to define the *process* by which education takes
)place as "religious" or "non-religious" is doomed to failure;
Huh? Here at least, the church that runs the school is often next door.
Also, they usually advertise themselves as a religious school. That makes it
easy. It only gets complicated in a situation like Waldorf where they,
bizarrely, deny being religious.
I wrote:
)I have not seen you address the scenario where two or more different
)religious schools are competing for the same funding.
)No such decision would be made. It appears that Diana has not been reading
)what I've actually written.
Gee, are you insulted? :) You repeatedly remind the list that you stop
reading my posts about a third of the way down.
Actually, I did realize later that what I asked you there did not make
sense, given your scenario of the state reimbursing parents. I think we've
been over this, though - I see "reimbursement" as likely leading to
"sponsorship"; once the barrier preventing the state from providing funding
is removed, once they are funding things they will obviously want the right
to decide what they're going to fund, and why not? That's church/state
separation 101 - it's the reason they're not presently permitted to get
involved in the funding!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Prospective Waldorf parents: read this
Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com) wrote:
Deborah, my wish would be that all prospective Waldorf parents read your reply to my post. It made me weep.
Warmest wishes,
Margaret
The other day my child told me about some of the local Waldorf graduates who are working at the "Gin Mill" which is a stip bar in La Crosse (33 miles from here). This is not to imply that it is only Waldorf female graduates who wind up in the sex industry, but to illustrate the hypocrisy of those who variously describe themselves as people who are seeking an alternative (i.e. better) education, lifestyle and future for their children and who believe they are racially (i.e. spiritually) superior to others. At least my child has someone in her life who has raised her to deal with reality; I have yet to encounter a Waldorf child who hasn't been raised to believe that s/he is responsible for creating and manifesting her/his own reality.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net) wrote:
Please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing but concern for this boy
who very much needs help but, due to the Waldorf environment and the
inherent deception therein, I feel he is unlikely to get it any time
soon.
Do you believe that the school's actions and/or failure(s) to act has to do with a belief in the "karma" of the victim and the perpetrator and/or to keep outside scrutiny at bay?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:19:21 +0000
From: Roger (robituk yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Get a life!
In the interests of my own lack of time and that of the regular readers
of this list, I’m going to divide my contribution into a number of
shorter episodes . . . epic-writers’ of this list please take note.
I have recently returned to the list after an absence of some years and
am amazed that not only is it still in existence but that some of the
same contributors are still spending a lot of time criticizing what they
obviously consider to be a ‘lost cause’. Why put so much time and
effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
so confused and void of relevance. I’m reminded of a phrase written by
the famous bard, who once said in some play or other, “methinks thou
dost protest too much”, or words to that effect. Could the real truth
be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
some of the so called “Steiner fans”. If I believed someone’s thoughts
to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn’t be spending my
spare time writing about it . . . so what gives?
Well, I am aware that some of you are ex-Waldorf parents who are finding
it very difficult to forgive past mistakes. I’ve been around Waldorf
long enough (30 years) to know that some of your complaints may be well
justified. Yes, Waldorf employees ARE only human and they DO make
mistakes, sometimes seemingly unforgivable ones . . . but I also know
that the difference between a wholesome Waldorf experience and a totally
‘crap’ one can be just a matter of the wall that separates two
classrooms . . . and two very different teachers. Waldorf schools do,
at times, employ some ‘dud’ practitioners, yet I shouldn’t need to point
out here that other types of schools, and indeed many organisations,
large and small, have made and continue to make such ‘mistakes’. It
doesn’t necessarily follow that the ‘method’ itself is a bad one.
“Ah!”, . . . I hear you say . . . “but the method IS a bad one.” I’d
like to address that next time . . . but don’t hold your breath . . . I
have a life beyond this list.
Before I close . . . I feel I must add that I will not be defending the
zealots who want to take Waldorf education and foist it on the wider
world whether the wider world wants it or not (charter/magnet schools?).
This appears to be a peculiarly American phenomenon and I would argue
that this is human failing and not specifically Waldorf. In a similar
vein, I’ll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE they enrol
their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
but that parents need to inform themselves about this philosophy before
making any commitment. My school runs free courses and open study
groups on the subject.
Regards Roger
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1433
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Get a life!
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: free choice of religion
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Get a life!
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Get a life!
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner's insight
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Get a life!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Get a life!
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Steiner's insight
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:16:35 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Get a life!
on 8/12/04 6:19 AM, Roger at robituk yahoo.co.uk wrote:
) I have recently returned to the list after an absence of some years and
) am amazed that not only is it still in existence but that some of the
) same contributors are still spending a lot of time criticizing what they
) obviously consider to be a ‘lost cause’.
Sharon: Hello Roger, pardon me but who considers trying to educate people
about SWA and attempting to keep church and state separate a lost cause?!
)Why put so much time and
) effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
) so confused and void of relevance.
Sharon: Some of us have put so much time and effort into this cause
precisely for those reasons you mention. We know that "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, U.S.
Constitution
)(snip) Could the real truth
) be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
) some of the so called “Steiner fans”. If I believed someone’s thoughts
) to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn’t be spending my
) spare time writing about it . . . so what gives?
Sharon: Again, it is exactly because of those reasons that we continue. I am
fascinated with the way Waldorf has boldly gone into the public sector
thumbing its nose at the Constitution. It amazes me that such a "loony"
subtext can get funding by the State. I am intrigued with the way some cults
work and it is a hobby of mine to study religions and to watch church and
state law suits and their outcomes. I subscribe to Freethought Today and
have donated to help fund other church/state legal battles, including a new
challenge against faith-based offices created by George Bush. I was
interested in the subject of religion before being duped by Waldorf but I am
even more interested in this topic after my experience in an
Anthroposophical group. Unfortunately, justice is slow--most of us critics
would be happy to have the PLANS case behind us but some of us think there
might be 10 more years ahead. Like you, some of us come and go from this
list. I've recently returned after several months off.
) Well, I am aware that some of you are ex-Waldorf parents who are finding
) it very difficult to forgive past mistakes.
Sharon: I have forgiven Waldorf for duping my family and also recognize that
it's a "buyer beware" world out there. I take responsibility for my mistake
of inadvertently joining a new religious movement without my conscious
choice, while also recognizing that I was a victim of consumer fraud.
I’ve been around Waldorf
) long enough (30 years) to know that some of your complaints may be well
) justified. Yes, Waldorf employees ARE only human and they DO make
) mistakes, sometimes seemingly unforgivable ones . . . but I also know
) that the difference between a wholesome Waldorf experience and a totally
) ‘crap’ one can be just a matter of the wall that separates two
) classrooms . . . and two very different teachers. Waldorf schools do,
) at times, employ some ‘dud’ practitioners, yet I shouldn’t need to point
) out here that other types of schools, and indeed many organisations,
) large and small, have made and continue to make such ‘mistakes’. It
) doesn’t necessarily follow that the ‘method’ itself is a bad one.
Sharon: It's the subtext that I find of most interest--what I believe to be
"bad". I also think Anthroposophist's denial that Anthroposophy is a
religion is also "bad". We happened to have a devout Anthroposophist teacher
with a history of problems, and we also lived near and rubbed shoulders with
some of the more devoted disciples of Steiner when we were Waldorfers, which
did color our experience--I'm certain--but most people participating in the
group when we were at the school were pretty clueless about the subtext, as
was my family. I think PLANS has helped make Waldorf slightly more
transparent, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
)
) “Ah!”, . . . I hear you say . . . “but the method IS a bad one.” I’d
) like to address that next time . . . but don’t hold your breath . . . I
) have a life beyond this list.
Sharon: Believing that people evolve through races is bad as far as I'm
concerned. Duping people is also bad. My family made a conscientious stand
against Apartheid and left South Africa because of Apartheid, later to prop
up a group with a similar doctrine at its core (unbeknownst to me at the
time). I want Waldorf to get more open and to address Steiner's racism.
We all have a life beyond this list.
) (snip) In a similar
) vein, I’ll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE they enrol
) their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
) but that parents need to inform themselves about this philosophy before
) making any commitment. My school runs free courses and open study
) groups on the subject.
Sharon: It will be a great day when Waldorf openly advertises to prospective
parents that they are mystery schools based and steeped in the mystic Rudolf
Steiner's religion Anthroposophy. It will be a great day when Steiner
followers quit denying that Anthroposophy is a religion. It will be a great
day when Waldorf brochures and recruiting methods openly discuss Steiner's
reincarnation doctrine and the school's religious foundation. It will be a
great day when Anthroposophists acknowledge Steiner's racist doctrine and
officially deal with it, like the Mormons did with Smith's doctrine in the
1970s. It will be a great day when Waldorf moves out of the public sector
and back to the private sector where it belongs. This is a cause worth my
time and effort.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:57:22 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
on 8/4/04 10:07 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
) I have not noticed any declaration by U.S. courts that Mr. Bush's
) "faith-based" initiative is unconstitutional. As I understand it, that
) initiative seeks to include religious organizations among service providers
) eligible for federal funding. Definitely, the proposal is ripe with
) potential for abuse, but my opinion is that if it is eventually found to be
) unconstitutional, it will be because of unconstitutional elements, perhaps
) religious preferences, built into it or in how it actually operates, rather
) than from the basic idea itself.
Sharon: Freedom from Religion Foundation filed suit in the court of Judge
John Shabaz for the Western district of Wisconsin, June 17 2004, naming
Towey, director of White House Office of Faith-based and Community
Initiatives. Watch that case.
FFRF is also suing Ashcroft (Department of Justice) as well as the
Secretaries of the Dept. of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services
plus 8 other federal "faith czars" as they call them. Tommy Thompson (now
Secretary of Health and Human Services, former governor of Wisconsin) is
being sued and Bobby Polito who Thompson appointed to head the Health and
Human Services Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.
FFRF won a landmark victory in 2002, winning the first challenge of direct
funding of a sectarian faith-based agency. Then Governor of Wisconsin,
Thompson, gave funds to Faith Works of Milwaukee, headed by Polito.
Basically, you could get State funded counseling if you sat through
Christian proselytizing acknowledging that Jesus is Lord who could help you
with your problems!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:14:48 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
) Do you believe that the school's actions and/or failure(s) to act has to
) do with a belief in the "karma" of the victim and the perpetrator
) and/or to keep outside scrutiny at bay?
)
) Deborah
In my opinion, the school's initial actions (letting the events
transpire) may have been karmically motivated - I suspect that was the
case in other instances where teachers have stood by while fist-fights
took place - but I think it is more likely that there was a breakdown in
communication, as the school claimed not everyone on campus knew the boy
had these tendencies. They should have been aware, however, because the
school claimed to have banned the boy from activities on campus - so the
lack of communication idea doesn't really hold water. I feel their
later actions (covering up the incidents) were more based on keeping
outside scrutiny at bay and attempting to avoid legal action through
plausible deniability. Unfortunately, as it became clear that a
cover-up was developing, more and more parents joined the outcry for
accountability.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:48:09 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Get a life!
Roger wrote:
)
) Why put so much time and
) effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
) so confused and void of relevance.
Yawn... Yes, we should all go away and let Waldorf schools go on with
their business - unmolested, so to speak.
)Could the real truth
) be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
) some of the so called “Steiner fans”. If I believed someone’s thoughts
) to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn’t be spending my
)
) spare time writing about it . . . so what gives?
I am not only fascinated by his writings, but by the fact that people
would be so inspired by this hogwash as to suppose they have some
entitlement to intentionally decieve unsuspecting parents to submit
their children for indoctrination.
) Well, I am aware that some of you are ex-Waldorf parents who are finding
)
) it very difficult to forgive past mistakes.
Sir, you clearly are not aware of the aloofness of your remark. I have
three children in therapy over these, apparently forgivable mistakes.
These human mistakes are repeated time and time again because of the
system, not because the participants are only human.
)I’ve been around Waldorf
) long enough (30 years) to know that some of your complaints may be well
) justified. Yes, Waldorf employees ARE only human and they DO make
) mistakes, sometimes seemingly unforgivable ones . . . but I also know
) that the difference between a wholesome Waldorf experience and a totally
)
) ‘crap’ one can be just a matter of the wall that separates two
) classrooms . . . and two very different teachers. Waldorf schools do,
) at times, employ some ‘dud’ practitioners, yet I shouldn’t need to point
)
) out here that other types of schools, and indeed many organisations,
) large and small, have made and continue to make such ‘mistakes’. It
) doesn’t necessarily follow that the ‘method’ itself is a bad one.
YES, it does. The Waldorf method is a bad one. It is a horrible one.
If you are willing to admit that there are bad teachers, then how about
considering a method that does not saddle some children with a bad
teacher for eight years? I'm sick of this "we're all human" defense -
especially from people who, by all accounting, consider themselves
higher than human.
) “Ah!”, . . . I hear you say . . . “but the method IS a bad one.” I’d
) like to address that next time . . . but don’t hold your breath . . . I
) have a life beyond this list.
Oh, I'm not holding my breath. But I will look forward to your defense
of the indefensible.
) Before I close . . . I feel I must add that I will not be defending the
) zealots who want to take Waldorf education and foist it on the wider
) world whether the wider world wants it or not (charter/magnet schools?).
)
) This appears to be a peculiarly American phenomenon and I would argue
) that this is human failing and not specifically Waldorf. In a similar
) vein, I’ll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE they enrol
) their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
)
) but that parents need to inform themselves about this philosophy before
) making any commitment. My school runs free courses and open study
) groups on the subject.
)
How nice. What exactly will you defend about Waldorf education? Will
you defend Steiner? Will you defend that Anthroposophy is not religious
in nature? Will you defend the quality of the education? I look
forward to your comments with mild enthusiasm.
Pete Karaiskos
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:35:52 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Get a life!
Hi Roger,
You wrote:
"I have recently returned to the list after an absence of some years and
am amazed that not only is it still in existence but that some of the
same contributors are still spending a lot of time criticizing what they
obviously consider to be a 'lost cause'. Why put so much time and
effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
so confused and void of relevance."
If that is your perception of many contributions to this list, I would
disagree. Listen: Not much, imo, can be considered a "lost cause," except a
mind unwilling to accept change.
" I'm reminded of a phrase written by
the famous bard, who once said in some play or other, "methinks thou
dost protest too much", or words to that effect. Could the real truth
be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
some of the so called "Steiner fans". If I believed someone's thoughts
to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn't be spending my
spare time writing about it . . . so what gives?"
Yes, I've heard that sentiment many times in my environmental work.
"Methinks thou doth protest too much" usually comes from the corporate
boardroom or via various political arenas. Of course, some countries do
not even allow protest - but we're better than them... right? And they call
it democracy....
"In a similar vein, I'll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE
they enrol
their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
but that parents need to inform themselves about this philosophy before
making any commitment. My school runs free courses and open study
groups on the subject."
Well, there we go - an area of agreement. Perhaps I can understand where
you are coming from. Now, do you understand that many parents on this list
and elsewhere have not had the opportunity of understanding what you
understand and consciously chose for your child/children? Yes, parents
"need to inform themselves" but often this quest for knowledge is blocked at
the doors of the school by comments like:
- Anthroposophy simply means "knowledge of Man"
- Steiner is difficult
- Steiner is mistranslated
- Eurythmy is simply a form of dance
- the morning verse is simply that and is not a prayer
- Steiner was a philosopher, artist, educator, etc.
Here's a bit of my own research - from a couple of years ago but it is still
relevant: http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles/WhoIsRS.html
A simple check of Waldorf school web site will help you understand the
problem many of us have had over the years. Roger, would you be willing to
share exactly how your school informs parents? By your account, your school
helps parents understand Anthroposophy's version of "karma," concepts of
reincarnation and soul work and Steiner's child development (past lives and
into the future). This is a good thing and I applaud your school for
sharing such vital information with parents.
What courses and study groups are offered at your school and are such events
suggested to parents *before* they enrol their children? Are you able to
share any promotional material from your school - web site, etc? Perhaps
you can help other schools with their public relations? How can integrity
and accountability be a bad thing? Far from being seen as one who protests
too much, you might be perceived as trying to help build a better future for
Waldorf education. What do you say...?
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:42:41 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's insight
At 06:35 AM 8/11/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
)Abd points out that Steiner's knowledge of Islam was primitive. This did
)not stop Steiner from making assertions about Islam.
)Abd appears to agree with me that Steiner's understanding of topics in
)science which Steiner felt he was able to make authoratitive assertions
)about was less than adequate.
)I find it hard to understand on what basis Abd thinks that Steiner had any
)spiritual insight.
Steiner's character flaw consisted in his propensity for making apparently
authoritative statements without having the necessary knowledge. I've been
known to do the same myself, by the way. I was trained in an environment
where that is how you presented yourself; if you didn't, you were
disrespected and disregarded.
(And you can see this propensity even in the last paragraph. At the
beginning of it, I make a statement about an alleged character flaw of
Steiner's. Am I a Steiner expert? No. I have more knowledge about Steiner
than the average person, and less than someone who has intensively studied....)
Now, can someone have spiritual insight and still have character flaws? My
answer is, definitely, Yes.
Obviously, my consideration that Steiner's spiritual insights *may* be
worth investigation is not based on his failures!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:07:55 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
At 09:57 AM 8/12/2004, Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
)FFRF won a landmark victory in 2002, winning the first challenge of direct
)funding of a sectarian faith-based agency. Then Governor of Wisconsin,
)Thompson, gave funds to Faith Works of Milwaukee, headed by Polito.
)Basically, you could get State funded counseling if you sat through
)Christian proselytizing acknowledging that Jesus is Lord who could help you
)with your problems!
The devil is in the details.
If the state established a program to provide payment to agencies which
provided specified non-religious services, and any agency which provided
those services, according to state standards, was eligible for payment,
then it might be constitutional.
If, on the other hand, the state awards a single contract, and it goes to a
religious organization, then the argument becomes strong that this amounts
to state sponsorship of a religious activity.
As to the constitutionality of the former, consider an example which is of
known and presumably tested constitutionality: the provision of medical
services. If a doctor, or practice, qualifies to accept Medicare, the
doctor can receive government payments, and there is no religion test, to
my knowledge.
Most of the objections I've seen here are based on the idea that students
in a religious school are exposed to religious services or classes.
However, the system I proposed would necessarily involve additional expense
for parents choosing to send their children to religious schools. Charter
schools are different, a religious school could possibly fail to meet
constitutional standards for a charter school, because such a school is, in
fact, a public school, and the per-student funding from the state is the
same as it is for a public school.
So, if students are exposed to religion in school, in the system I
proposed, it would be because the parents chose to send them to that
school. The parents would have options, and at least one of those options
would be non-religious, i.e., the public school or schools.
Because the state would necessarily be paying less than the true cost of
providing the *non-religious* education that the children would have to be
receiving to be eligible for funding, it would not be at all true that the
state would be paying for religious education. Such education, if provided
by the school, would be provided at private expense.
The only way in which such a system could be seen as supporting religious
education, per se, is that it would make it easier for religious schools to
form and operate, since the expense of doing so would be reduced, unless
the religious school was unwilling to provide the secular education that
was being funded.
This would, in fact, provide a powerful incentive for private religious
schools to teach such subjects as evolution, for if a high school
curriculum included biology, it would necessarily include the theory of
evolution.
But the system I propose would be religion-neutral. Any private school
could apply for funding based on the criteria in the enabling legislation.
The religion of the school, if any, would be irrelevant.
On a per-student basis, public schools would be fully funded; private
schools only partially, at below the incremental per-pupil cost to public
schools, so it would still be true that every student enrolled in a private
school would *increase* the funding theoretically available for public schools.
It was also asserted or implied that I am seeking to send my child to a
"religious school." I'm not. I don't consider Waldorf schools, per se, as
religious, though there are religious aspects to them (enough to make the
question legally open to challenge). We might also send our child to a
religious school, there is a Jewish school that might be possible, and
which is being considered at the present time for preschool care. There are
a number of options for preschool or day care open to us, one is religious,
one is Waldorf, several are somewhat "Waldorfy" and others have no specific
philosophy. None have been ruled out. Religion, per se, is not a criterion,
unless the religious aspect of the school were overwhelming *and*
offensive. That would not be true of any of the options under consideration.
If there were a Muslim school in our vicinity, it would be considered, to
be sure, but not necessarily chosen. Religion is not the issue for us;
rather, the quality of child care and education is.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:50:11 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: Get a life!
Roger,
Let me get this straight: it's a waste of time for people to try to correct something that they see is wrong and is hurting children and families?
I wonder if you would hold this view if your own child and family had been hurt or damaged by what seemed to you a willful neglect on the part of a school or system or even individual. I don't think so. In fact, I hope not.
Few things that are wrong or amiss would ever change if people had a very short attention span and just "got on with their lives" instead of working as hard and as best as they can to change those wrongs. I feel that way about Waldorf. Though I defend the right of any private school to teach whatever it wants, I also think it is grossly wrong for schools to conceal their true philosophy and inner workings from parents. I strongly believe that Waldorf schools do that. Until it stops, many of us will not stop. We don't want to see any other children and families have happen to them what happened to us. It is that simple.
Believe me, we all have lives.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Sent: Aug 12, 2004 11:48 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Get a life!
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for more info!
http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Medical Hair Restoration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger wrote:
)
) Why put so much time and
) effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
) so confused and void of relevance.
Yawn... Yes, we should all go away and let Waldorf schools go on with
their business - unmolested, so to speak.
)Could the real truth
) be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
) some of the so called “Steiner fans”. If I believed someone’s thoughts
) to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn’t be spending my
)
) spare time writing about it . . . so what gives?
I am not only fascinated by his writings, but by the fact that people
would be so inspired by this hogwash as to suppose they have some
entitlement to intentionally decieve unsuspecting parents to submit
their children for indoctrination.
) Well, I am aware that some of you are ex-Waldorf parents who are finding
)
) it very difficult to forgive past mistakes.
Sir, you clearly are not aware of the aloofness of your remark. I have
three children in therapy over these, apparently forgivable mistakes.
These human mistakes are repeated time and time again because of the
system, not because the participants are only human.
)I’ve been around Waldorf
) long enough (30 years) to know that some of your complaints may be well
) justified. Yes, Waldorf employees ARE only human and they DO make
) mistakes, sometimes seemingly unforgivable ones . . . but I also know
) that the difference between a wholesome Waldorf experience and a totally
)
) ‘crap’ one can be just a matter of the wall that separates two
) classrooms . . . and two very different teachers. Waldorf schools do,
) at times, employ some ‘dud’ practitioners, yet I shouldn’t need to point
)
) out here that other types of schools, and indeed many organisations,
) large and small, have made and continue to make such ‘mistakes’. It
) doesn’t necessarily follow that the ‘method’ itself is a bad one.
YES, it does. The Waldorf method is a bad one. It is a horrible one.
If you are willing to admit that there are bad teachers, then how about
considering a method that does not saddle some children with a bad
teacher for eight years? I'm sick of this "we're all human" defense -
especially from people who, by all accounting, consider themselves
higher than human.
) “Ah!”, . . . I hear you say . . . “but the method IS a bad one.” I’d
) like to address that next time . . . but don’t hold your breath . . . I
) have a life beyond this list.
Oh, I'm not holding my breath. But I will look forward to your defense
of the indefensible.
) Before I close . . . I feel I must add that I will not be defending the
) zealots who want to take Waldorf education and foist it on the wider
) world whether the wider world wants it or not (charter/magnet schools?).
)
) This appears to be a peculiarly American phenomenon and I would argue
) that this is human failing and not specifically Waldorf. In a similar
) vein, I’ll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE they enrol
) their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
)
) but that parents need to inform themselves about this philosophy before
) making any commitment. My school runs free courses and open study
) groups on the subject.
)
How nice. What exactly will you defend about Waldorf education? Will
you defend Steiner? Will you defend that Anthroposophy is not religious
in nature? Will you defend the quality of the education? I look
forward to your comments with mild enthusiasm.
Pete Karaiskos
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGb1IpcOf/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
"If a doctor, or practice, qualifies to accept Medicare, the
doctor can receive government payments, and there is no religion test,
to
my knowledge."
However, a doctor cannot legally ( the last I checked) bill Medicare or any other taxpayer supported insurance system for homeopathy, for example, because it has no scientific validity. I have problems with some aspects of allopathic medicine because it has its own faith-based elements, but something such as homeopathy is wholly faith-based, i.e. religious, by its nature.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Get a life!
Roger (robituk yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
"I have recently returned to the list after an absence of some years and
am amazed that not only is it still in existence but that some of the
same contributors are still spending a lot of time criticizing what they
obviously consider to be a ‘lost cause’."
I'm confused as to what you mean by 'lost cause.' Are you quoting someone in particular? It is because of the power and influence that anthroposophy is steadily accruing that has me involved in understanding it and its machinations. That seems to me the antithesis of a 'lost cause.' Also, I assume that Waldorf schools qualify as tax exempt organizations, which means that taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing them whether or not they receive direct public funding. To be concise, I personally do not want to subsidize an entity that is based upon a belief that my family and I would have been genocided out of existence but for the intervention of the devil.
"Why put so much time and
effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
so confused and void of relevance. I’m reminded of a phrase written by
the famous bard, who once said in some play or other, “methinks thou
dost protest too much”, or words to that effect. Could the real truth
be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
some of the so called “Steiner fans”."
Are those who work for the elimination of child sexual use likewise to be accused of "protesting too much" and therefore can be seen as having a motive other than what they profess to have?
"If I believed someone’s thoughts
to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn’t be spending my
spare time writing about it . . . so what gives?"
Many of the thoughts of members of the NSDAP were confusing, even to their co-members, but more than 1/2 a century after WWII many people continue to spend lots of time attempting to unravel those basis of those thoughts for what should be obvious reasons.
"Yes, Waldorf employees ARE only human and they DO make
mistakes, sometimes seemingly unforgivable ones . . . but I also know
that the difference between a wholesome Waldorf experience and a totally
‘crap’ one can be just a matter of the wall that separates two
classrooms . . . and two very different teachers. Waldorf schools do, at times, employ some ‘dud’ practitioners,"
Are the duds the ones who do not have anthroposophy and its indoctrination techniques well enough in hand to be "good" Waldorf teachers? Traditional (as opposed to some contemporary Catholic schools) Catholic schools also have good and bad teachers, but they are all Catholics and they have a curriculum they must follow that includes religious study.
"yet I shouldn’t need to point
out here that other types of schools, and indeed many organisations,
large and small, have made and continue to make such ‘mistakes’. It
doesn’t necessarily follow that the ‘method’ itself is a bad one."
Now see this is a good example of the confusion that Steiner followers cause, deliberately or not, when reacting to criticism of WE and anthroposophy. I haven't read anything on this list about Waldorf mistakes; in fact, one of the primary criticisms is that information is intentionally withheld by Waldorf institutions from prospective enrollees and/or their parents. "Intentional" and "mistake" are certainly in no way synonymous. Likewise, Waldorf Education isn't even an educational "method" and the methods by which its underlying doctrine is inculcated into children (in particular) is not for me the primary issue. Rather, it is the doctrine itself that is highly problematic and must be exposed for what it truly is, not what its practitioners say it is. A belief system that is racialist and that has been gaining such a foothold in mainstream U.S.A., as has anthroposophy, is more than just "bad." After all, the NSDAP had such strong support in Britain prior to WWII that Alfred
Rosenberg, in particular, believed that Britain would be its strongest ally in the impending conflict. It is disturbing to realize that those elements simply went dormant for a bit and undoubtedly are the ones to which anthroposophy seems so attractive.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:33:34 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
At 03:35 PM 8/12/2004, Gideon Mills wrote:
)Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
)"If a doctor, or practice, qualifies to accept Medicare, the
)doctor can receive government payments, and there is no religion test,
)to
)my knowledge."
)
)However, a doctor cannot legally ( the last I checked) bill Medicare or
)any other taxpayer supported insurance system for homeopathy, for example,
)because it has no scientific validity. I have problems with some aspects
)of allopathic medicine because it has its own faith-based elements, but
)something such as homeopathy is wholly faith-based, i.e. religious, by its
)nature.
Yes. Exactly. The doctor can bill for a recognized treatment.
However, this is not a separation of state and religion issue; homeopathy,
in spite of being -- allegedly -- "faith-based," is not reimbursed because
effectiveness has not been shown to the satisfaction of the state, not
because there allegedly some religious element.
The claim that "faith-based" is equivalent to "religious" is spurious. If
there were a pill you could take that would create "faith" and thus amplify
the placebo effect, in a way that could be shown to increase the
effectiveness of *any* treatment, the state would not be prevented from
reimbursing for it. Essentially, the state will pay for effective
treatment, not for religiousness. It is conceivable that, if "prayer" were
shown, by conclusive studies similar to those required for medications, to
be effective for treatment of disease, the teaching of "prayer" might be
something reimbursable.... However, at this point there would be, for sure,
a constitutional issue, because prayer is generally recognized to be a
religious activity.
(It is not, actually, it is only that prayer is common to religions and not
common to non-religious activities; the AA program does involve what is
effectively prayer, and AA participation has often been made a condition of
probation, for example. Yet AA is not a religious organization, you can be
an atheist and participate -- there are meetings where, for example, the
Lord's Prayer has been dropped --; basically there are secular
interpretations of how the AA program works, the "higher power" invoked is,
in these interpretations, the group or society or perhaps some relative
abstraction deemed to be wiser than the individual. There is a book about
AA that sums up the program as "Not-God," i.e., "I am not God." Just
because I'm not God does not mean that there *is* some other God, but AA
members, the ones who survive, tend to have discover that there is
*something* greater than the individual....)
So should not a school be able to bill the state for recognized education?
That is, education which produces recognizable results, i.e., the students
can pass state tests?
I say that if the school can effectively educate, whether or not the school
is religious should be irrelevant, just as it should be irrelevant what
students do outside of school hours in public schools.
If students were forced to attend religious services at a private school (a
foolish thing to do in any case), this does not create, in my view, a
constitutional issue unless students are forced to choose that school. As
long as the public provides free education to all and a private school
either charges *something* or is privately funded, there would be no state
endorsement of religion by allowing private schools (religious and
otherwise) to receive reimbursement for educational services rendered.
By keeping the private school public funding at the per-pupil incremental
expense at public schools, a system would basically ensure that public
funds were not being used to support religious activities, except in the
sense that *any* expense for the public welfare can benefit a religious
organization; for example, the state can build a road that allows people to
travel more easily to church services....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:54:28 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's insight
Abd wrote:
)Now, can someone have spiritual insight and still have character flaws? My
)answer is, definitely, Yes.
)
)Obviously, my consideration that Steiner's spiritual insights *may* be
)worth investigation is not based on his failures!
This argument is consistent with the notion that anyone can have spiritual
insights which may be worth investigating. This particular character flaw of
Steiner's seems to me to be well established, and should place doubt on all
of his authoritative claims. So the question then becomes why should Abd
consider Steiner's spiritual insights more worthy of investigation than mine
or Dan Dugan's or Shirley Maclaine's.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Play Love Hunt to win a $9000 holiday and find love!
http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mclovehunt/lovehunt.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
)However, a doctor cannot legally ( the last I checked) bill Medicare or
)any other taxpayer supported insurance system for homeopathy, for example,
)because it has no scientific validity. I have problems with some aspects
)of allopathic medicine because it has its own faith-based elements, but
)something such as homeopathy is wholly faith-based, i.e. religious, by its
)nature.
"homeopathy,
in spite of being -- allegedly -- "faith-based," is not reimbursed because
effectiveness has not been shown to the satisfaction of the state, not
because there allegedly some religious element."
That is what I essentially stated in my prior post.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1434
-- Topica Digest --
Re: free choice of religion
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Let's pretend
By mysplum earthlink.net
What kind of life?
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:04:47 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
on 8/12/04 2:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
) The devil is in the details.
Sharon: And law is fickle. Guarding the wall of separation will never be
finished, it is perpetual work. Lately there seems to be more work than
usual, probably because of millenarianism, Sept. 11 and George Bush and his
personal religious beliefs which he can't seem to separate from himself and
his job.
Glad to report some good news about "Scopes 2". On June 7th FFRF won their
four year battle in Rhea County Tennessee, challenging religious instruction
in 3 county schools. In 1925 Rhea County Courthouse was the place where the
famous Scopes or Monkey trial took place. Bryan College was established
after the Scopes trial in honor of William Jennings Bryan, one of the main
lawyers arguing against teaching evolution. Bryan College is a Christian
college requiring staff and pupils to subscribe to a statement of
fundamentalist belief that "the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Savior" and
the school has the motto--"Christ Above All". Bryan College students would
go into the Rhea County public schools once a week during school hours and
teach children their biblical beliefs, without parental sanction. (Stuff
like the 10 Commandments and how we should obey all of God's commandments).
Earlier, after the Judge's decision that this case made an even stronger
case for violation of the Establishment Clause than the McCollum v. Board of
Education ruling which barred religious instruction in public schools in
1948, the county appealed. County officials argued that FFRF lacked standing
and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. (Sort of the same argument against
the PLANS case). The county lost all aspects of its appeal. The appeals
court ruled that the religious instruction failed the three prongs of the
Lemon Test...no secular purpose, advanced religion and found that the
classes entangled church and state since the classes took place during
school hours.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. Go PLANS go!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:43:49 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Sharon: I've been thinking that if Anthroposophy isn't a religion--which is
Anthroposophy's official position in the PLANS case--then what on earth
could it be? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what it could
possibly be and have come up with one idea, "science fiction?". Then I
realized that if Anthroposophy is not a religion, (which it is but let's
pretend) then the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the
First Amendment would not apply. That relieves the state and I of the burden
of having to think of Anthroposophy as a religion. This means I could take a
more hard-line approach in my criticism of Anthroposophy because
Anthroposophy would no longer have Constitutional freedom of religion
protection. (G) First I have to figure out what it is...any ideas?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:23:30 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: What kind of life?
As I embark on a new life in a new home, I've been pondering Roger's
peculiar advice, and trying to figure out what sort of life he thinks
critics of anthroposophical confusion should get. Since Roger seems
disinclined to explain his own reasoning, it's hard to tell for sure, but it
sounds like he wants people to lead unexamined lives, lives of simple
affirmation, without the messiness of critique. Roger's real complaint, to
the extent that one can be discerned from his post, appears to be against
criticism as such (feel free to speak up, Roger, if you'd like to explain
your argument again). I can't help wondering if this urge for a life without
critical reflection tells us something about the kind of people who hang
around Waldorf for 30 years... In any case, Roger wrote:
)I have recently returned to the list after an absence of some years and
)am amazed that not only is it still in existence but that some of the
)same contributors are still spending a lot of time criticizing what they
)obviously consider to be a ‘lost cause’.
Why does this amaze you, Roger? Are you amazed when people study the history
of slavery, for instance? After all, it turned out to be a lost cause. Or do
you mean that it's okay to study such things, but that you find criticism of
them amazing in some way? How about those who spend their time criticizing
human rights abuses? Or critics of works of art, literature, or cinema? It
would be interesting to learn what you think are proper objects of
criticism.
) Why put so much time and
)effort into investigating something that, according to some of you, is
)so confused and void of relevance.
Because lots of people continue to be confused about it, due in part to the
unreflective and uncritical attitudes of some of its would-be defenders. (By
the way, this sort of concern for improved public understanding of
relatively obscure issues is what 'relevance' often signifies, which leads
me to wonder how you concluded that critics of anthroposophical confusion
consider the topic devoid of relevance.)
) I’m reminded of a phrase written by
)the famous bard, who once said in some play or other, “methinks thou
)dost protest too much”, or words to that effect.
Methinks thou should re-read the play, Roger. You quite misunderstood that
line. It's an ironic comment on people like you. When Hamlet's mother says,
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks", it reflects her own discomfort
at the perceived criticism of others, and she incriminates herself by
uttering the line. The scene thus satirizes the very same approach to
critique that you have advocated here. Really. Look it up.
)Could the real truth
)be that you are actually as fascinated by this man and his writings as
)some of the so called “Steiner fans”.
More so, in fact. Why, pray tell, do you find this odd? It is extremely
common. People who take a critical perspective on a given worldview are very
often considerably more likely to have an accurate and informed
understanding of that worldview than people who subscribe to it themselves.
That is indeed one of the fundamental differences between critique and
credulousness. Those who take a credulous approach to the "man and his
writings" -- the kind of approach you endorse -- will frequently end up
confused. This is, of course, what sparks criticism in the first place. (A
helpful hint: If you really want critics of what you hold dear to go away,
you'd do well to alleviate your own confusion about both the man and his
writings.)
)If I believed someone’s thoughts
)to be so confused and without merit, I, for one, wouldn’t be spending my
)spare time writing about it . . .
Why not? Because you prefer affirmation to critique? Because you prefer
approval to protest? I'm in the midst of teaching a seminar on antisemitism.
Many of the students are intensely interested in the topic, precisely
because antisemitic beliefs are typically confused and without merit. That's
what makes them a compelling object of study, and spurs my students to spend
their spare time reading and writing about it. You, however, find this
baffling. Unless you're trying to say that you think people ought to affirm
and approve of antisemitism, then I take it that you would prefer that
people simply ignore the confusion of others, on the off chance that this
confusion will somehow dissipate on its own. (Again, feel free to elaborate
if you think I am missing your point.)
)so what gives?
Public discussion. Believe it or not, some folks think that's a good thing,
not a bad thing, when it comes to controversial topics.
)Before I close . . . I feel I must add that I will not be defending the
)zealots who want to take Waldorf education and foist it on the wider
)world whether the wider world wants it or not
But there's no way of knowing what the wider world wants in the absence of
direct criticism and open public discussion. Did this not occur to you? The
kind of unexamined and uncritical life that you just urged on us obviously
renders this sort of discernment impossible. That's one reason why a lot of
people are likely to decline your advice to get a life of minding their own
business. It seems to me that living an examined life -- the kind of life
that is truly worth getting, Roger, if you don't have one yet -- involves
taking a critical look at things that you like and admire, as well as things
you dislike and disapprove of. When you encounter another set of beliefs
that strike you as confused and inadequate, that is exactly when critique is
called for. I invite you to give this a try some time. Regards,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1435
-- Topica Digest --
RE: What kind of life?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: threefold social order in Israel
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:38:21 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: What kind of life?
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Roger wrote:
) ) I’m reminded of a phrase written by
) )the famous bard, who once said in some play or other, “methinks thou
) )dost protest too much”, or words to that effect.
)
)
) Methinks thou should re-read the play, Roger. You quite misunderstood
) that
) line. It's an ironic comment on people like you. When Hamlet's mother
) says,
) "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", it reflects her own
) discomfort
) at the perceived criticism of others, and she incriminates herself by
) uttering the line. The scene thus satirizes the very same approach to
) critique that you have advocated here. Really. Look it up.
Roger seems to have gotten a life. Alas, poor Roger, we knew him. I
have to say that as causes go, saving children from harm at the hands of
misguided, deceptive Anthroposophists seems to be a rather worthwhile
cause in my book. People who don't get why this is important encourage
(rather than discourage) me to redouble my efforts to expose the
problems at Waldorf schools by participating in forums like this one.
The Waldorf community would do a lot to silence me if they would just
"get it" - but they never seem to. I'm not asking them to be or not to
be - but rather to be better, to self-evaluate and per chance to
improve. It is by their own arrogance that they are doomed to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism by me. (Apologies to Mr.
Shakespeare).
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:58:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: threefold social order in Israel
)Dan Dugan wrote:
))
)) Here's an example of the political work of Anthroposophists, the home
)) page of "Israeli Civil Society."
))
) ) http://www.civilsociety.co.il/eng/
))
)) The words "Steiner" or "Anthroposophy" are nowhere on the page.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
Charlie Frey commented:
)I didn't read it super closely, but how can you tell it's an
)Anthroposophical thing?
)I can't.
Clues: "threefold" "Dr. Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon" "Nicanor Perlas"
)If it is, though, I guess you're saying that they should say so.
)If so....oh my God, Dan....I agree with you!
)How often does that happen?
)Charlie
I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, though not often here!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1436
-- Topica Digest --
maverick teacher training?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner on "Arabism"
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Let's pretend
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: maverick teacher training?
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:30:01 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: maverick teacher training?
There's a teacher training college associated with the Portland
Waldorf school that appears to be a maverick program. It's not
associated with AWSNA and isn't listed in Bob & Nancy's directory of
teacher training. Take a look at:
http://www.micha-elinstitute.com
It's deeply Anthroposophic. Anybody know the story of why it's
shunned by the Waldorf establishment?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:05:50 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
DIANA WINTERS:
) ) )The discussions of karma and reincarnation and the
)) ) ) potential justifications for abuse or ignoring of abuse that karma and
)) )) reincarnation provide are highly relevant, considering the teachers are
)) )) probably talking about karma and reincarnation each week at faculty
)) )) meeting
) ) )) or Steiner study.
CHARLIE FREY:
) ) ) What an absurd and irresponsible thing to say.
)) )Using karma as an excuse to ignore abuse? There is nothing in
)) )Anthroposophy that would justify such an idiotic idea.
)) )I really resent the fact that you would post such a thing.
)) )More imflammatory drivel.
)) )Fortunately, though, it's just this kind of thing that keeps PLANS from
) ) )gaining too much credibility.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) The reason we're talking about this deviant behavior is because
)) people have observed Anthroposophists doing it. Anthroposophy is what
) ) Anthroposophy does.
CHARLIE FREY:
)Anthroposophy is as Anthroposophy does?
)Perfect, Dan.
)Keep up the good work.
)I once saw a man with a green shirt strike his child; people in green
)shirts are as people in green shirts do.
) Anthroposophy, for better or worse, is populated by people; and I don't
)have to tell you about people and mistakes.
) I am complimented that so many hold us to such a high standard, but the
)result is that it leads to such shock and horror when we prove that we
)are, alas, human.
Let me be more specific. Of course Anthroposophists are as subject to
human failings as any other group. In the category of sexual abuse of
children, however, there seem to be institutional connections.
1) The doctrine of "the law of karma" is quoted as a justification
for looking the other way at behaviors that would be unacceptable in
ethical institutions, and
2) the covering-up of sexual misbehavior by co-workers seems to be a
part of the culture, i.e. "we take care of our own problems,"
parallel to the tradition that developed in the Catholic Church.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:38:19 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on "Arabism"
)8/9/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
))Abd, have you read the essay in "Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts"
))where Steiner discusses the influence, in his opinion negative, of
))Arabian thought on Europe?
)
)No. Interesting quote. As readers of this list know, I consider
)that, whatever level of spiritual insight Steiner had, he also made
)many mistakes, and gave his opinion, sometimes, based on
)insufficient information. His knowledge of Islam was primitive.
Here's another reference, expressing the attitude in contemporary
Anthroposophy:
In the Mysteries the name Sorath provided the key for the number 666
and thus a symbolic meaning; on the other hand--as was made clear in
the lectures of 1918--an actual historic date is connected, namely
the year 666 A.D. during which time Sorath perpetrated a powerful
attack against the progress of mankind. This found expression
primarily in Arabism. [Schroeder, Hans-Werner. "Sorath and the End of
the Century." Journal for Anthroposophy. No. 68, Spring 1999, p. 67.]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:13:39 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
This means I could take a
)more hard-line approach in my criticism of Anthroposophy because
)Anthroposophy would no longer have Constitutional freedom of religion
)protection. (G) First I have to figure out what it is...any ideas?
I think this is quite right. If it is a religion then I my general respect
for freedom of religion comes into play and I restrict my criticism to those
aspects which intrude into public and political life. If it is not a
religion (but a philosphy say) then the whole thing is fair game for
criticism.
See you, Peter.
_________________________________________________________________
Smart Saving with ING Direct – earn 5.25% p.a. variable rate:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;7249209;8842331;n?http://www.ingdirect.com.au/burst6offer.asp?id=8
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:34:35 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: maverick teacher training?
Is it called "Mariposa" by chance? Just wondering if their hoping to be
a maverick program. Been there, done that. (Meaning = school doesn't
make enough money to pay it's own bills, what is more, dues to the
higher being, AWSNA.)
Sounds like another struggling school trying to survive in a not so
creative way. In my experience, these schools tend to be very dogmatic -
trying to make up for lack of financial support, I'd guess. They
certainly don't seem to attract the best of the best, Waldorf speaking...
On Sunday, August 15, 2004, at 11:30 AM, Dan Dugan wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Get a Great Credit Card for You Today You can find a credit card to fit
) your credit needs. All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, &
) Bad Credit.
) http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGb32c4Ma/411Web
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) There's a teacher training college associated with the Portland Waldorf
) school that appears to be a maverick program. It's not associated with
) AWSNA and isn't listed in Bob & Nancy's directory of teacher training.
) Take a look at:
)
) http://www.micha-elinstitute.com
)
) It's deeply Anthroposophic. Anybody know the story of why it's shunned
) by the Waldorf establishment?
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Amazing Diet Patch
) The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGb32c4Mf/MyDietPatches
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1437
-- Topica Digest --
Re: maverick teacher training?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Let's pretend
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: maverick teacher training?
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Let's pretend
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Let's pretend
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Let's pretend
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Let's pretend
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Get a life!
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: Let's pretend
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Let's pretend
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Let's pretend
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Let's pretend
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:28:46 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: maverick teacher training?
on 8/16/04 3:34 AM, Debra Snell at snell gv.net wrote:
)
) Sounds like another struggling school trying to survive in a not so
) creative way. In my experience, these schools tend to be very dogmatic -
) trying to make up for lack of financial support, I'd guess. They
) certainly don't seem to attract the best of the best, Waldorf speaking...
Sharon: It's a Waldorf *teacher* training school, called "Micha-el
Institute", not a Waldorf school. I think the way they write "Micha-el" is
very interesting indeed. Very deep Anthro pronunciation and meaning there
(G).
An image on the site made me wonder about something I have wondered about
for a long time. See the picture of a Bruno-like organic shape of forces
which is labeled "One of the Seven Seals"? In Anthroposophy there are two
sets of Seven Seals. One lot of Steiner's Seven Seals has actual images of
the Apocalypse depicted on them, like the woman clothed with the Sun and
Michael and the dragon etc. (You can see these in John Fletcher's "Art
Inspired by Rudolf Steiner" or you can see an almost identical version in
Eliphas Levi's "Dogma and Ritual of High Magic" also available in Fletcher's
book). The other lot of Seven Seals are Planetary Seals, resembling the one
depicted on the Micha-el Institute's site. (Fletcher has various pictures of
these as well including the glass engravings by Francina Van Davelaar). I've
always wondered if the Planetary Seals and the Apocalyptic Seals are the
same thing? Anyone know? I think that the Planetary Seals could just be an
outer form of the more spiritually deep Apocalyptic Seals.
The Planetary Seals can be used to meditate on color. Steiner said that
color is the organ of spiritual beings and that you can learn to see through
walls and see beings if you devote yourself to color. What beings you see
depend on what color you devote yourself to. The Seal depicted on the
Micha-el Institute site is Mars I think.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:45:55 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
on 8/15/04 6:13 PM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
)
) This means I could take a
)) more hard-line approach in my criticism of Anthroposophy because
)) Anthroposophy would no longer have Constitutional freedom of religion
)) protection. (G) First I have to figure out what it is...any ideas?
)
)
) I think this is quite right. If it is a religion then I my general respect
) for freedom of religion comes into play and I restrict my criticism to those
) aspects which intrude into public and political life. If it is not a
) religion (but a philosphy say) then the whole thing is fair game for
) criticism.
Sharon: Right (G). You could treat it like Michael Moore treats the Bush
administration or worse (G). As it is now, I always have that clause from
the First Amendment in the back of my mind: "...or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof". If it's not religion, then it can be prohibited like
say...smoking. I'm still trying to figure out what Anthroposophy could be. A
Philosophers have told me that Anthroposophy isn't philosophy because it
doesn't meet certain requirements. When I went back to school to fathom
Anthroposophy I wanted to be in the Philosophy Department but they told me I
had to study Steiner in the Religious Studies Department.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:14:10 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: maverick teacher training?
At 07:28 AM 8/16/2004, Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
)Sharon: It's a Waldorf *teacher* training school, called "Micha-el
)Institute", not a Waldorf school. I think the way they write "Micha-el" is
)very interesting indeed. Very deep Anthro pronunciation and meaning there
)(G).
It's to indicate the Hebrew pronunciation, and is more correct than the 'my
cull" way that we tend to pronounce the name in English, ignoring the
dipthong. "El" means "God," and there are lots of Hebrew names that end in
"el." Daniel, for example, in which we *do* pronounce the final syllable
correctly. If I'm correct, the middle syllable ("i") in Daniel should be
long, as in "me," and I think it means "my". I.e., My Judge is God. But
that is by analogy from the Arabic, I don't know Hebrew.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:20:00 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
At 06:13 PM 8/15/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
)I think this is quite right. If it is a religion then I my general respect
)for freedom of religion comes into play and I restrict my criticism to
)those aspects which intrude into public and political life. If it is not a
)religion (but a philosphy say) then the whole thing is fair game for criticism.
Yes. Here is an example where Mr. Farrell agrees with anthroposophy. One
ought to have a clue that it is a philosophy just by the name!
(Someone is likely to post quotations from anthroposophical publications
about outside criticism being disregarded. That is essentially a claim that
understanding of a subject is necessary before criticizing it; it is only a
warning that ignorant criticism might be ignored by the "esoteric school,"
not that such criticism is forbidden -- for, after all, how could it be?)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:44:04 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
Compared to philosophy and religion, Anthroposophy is an infant.
Why must it fit into one of these old categories?
Eurythmy, for instance, is in its own category. It is not dance, and it
doesn't fit into any other category that I am aware of.
This is often the challenge of things that are new---people try to put
them in old categories.
The automobile, for instance, needed to break out of the "horseless
carriage" mold so it could develop its own identity.
Maybe Anthroposophy is a synthesis of religion and philosophy that fits
into neither category.
c
mysplum wrote:
)
) on 8/15/04 6:13 PM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
)
) )
) ) Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
) )
) ) This means I could take a
) )) more hard-line approach in my criticism of Anthroposophy because
) )) Anthroposophy would no longer have Constitutional freedom of religion
) )) protection. (G) First I have to figure out what it is...any ideas?
) )
) )
) ) I think this is quite right. If it is a religion then I my general
) ) respect
) ) for freedom of religion comes into play and I restrict my criticism to
) ) those
) ) aspects which intrude into public and political life. If it is not a
) ) religion (but a philosphy say) then the whole thing is fair game for
) ) criticism.
)
) Sharon: Right (G). You could treat it like Michael Moore treats the Bush
) administration or worse (G). As it is now, I always have that clause
) from
) the First Amendment in the back of my mind: "...or prohibiting the free
) exercise thereof". If it's not religion, then it can be prohibited like
) say...smoking. I'm still trying to figure out what Anthroposophy could
) be. A
) Philosophers have told me that Anthroposophy isn't philosophy because it
) doesn't meet certain requirements. When I went back to school to fathom
) Anthroposophy I wanted to be in the Philosophy Department but they told
) me I
) had to study Steiner in the Religious Studies Department.
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
"Compared to philosophy and religion, Anthroposophy is an infant."
But it does pre-date National Socialism.
"Why must it fit into one of these old categories?"
It doesn't have to fit; it just does. Any belief based on racial precepts is faith-based, i.e. religious, since race has no biological basis and therefore is a construct unrelated to science or (even) reality. If you understand history, nothing truly new in terms of human beliefs has happened in the past many thousands of years. It's all recycled and race-based belief systems (which generally result in genocide of some sort), including anthroposophy, may be nearly as old as humans.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:04:04 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
Deborah,
I can assume by your post that your particular focus on Anthroposophy
concerns race, but to say that it is "based on racial precepts" is as
absurd as saying that the Declaration of Independence is based on
"pursuit".
c
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
) charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
)
) "Compared to philosophy and religion, Anthroposophy is an infant."
)
) But it does pre-date National Socialism.
)
) "Why must it fit into one of these old categories?"
)
) It doesn't have to fit; it just does. Any belief based on racial
) precepts is faith-based, i.e. religious, since race has no biological
) basis and therefore is a construct unrelated to science or (even)
) reality. If you understand history, nothing truly new in terms of human
) beliefs has happened in the past many thousands of years. It's all
) recycled and race-based belief systems (which generally result in
) genocide of some sort), including anthroposophy, may be nearly as old as
) humans.
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:37:30 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Get a life!
I
) have a life beyond this list.
Hi Roger,
So do I- now. Or rather I have reclaimed my own life back from
anthroposophy. I was in the special needs field, which as you are
probably aware means live-in. Now that I am removed from it all, I have
reclaimed responsibility for my own views on religion, diet, history,
culture and oh..everything. And its wonderful.
)
) Before I close . . . I feel I must add that I will not be defending the
) zealots who want to take Waldorf education and foist it on the wider
) world whether the wider world wants it or not (charter/magnet schools?).
)
In a similar
) vein, I’ll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE they enrol
) their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
)
Fine. Might I ask your views on Camphill etc? Social Workers and others
acting as agents for the special people are usually fobbed of with
something along the lines of "Care and training based on the principles
of Rudolf Steiner" Questions on just what this means are generally met
with similar responses given to folk who query Waldorf education.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:49:28 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
mysplum wrote:
)
)
) Sharon: I've been thinking that if Anthroposophy isn't a religion--which
) is
) Anthroposophy's official position in the PLANS case--then what on earth
) could it be? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what it
) could
) possibly be and have come up with one idea, "science fiction?". Then I
) realized that if Anthroposophy is not a religion, (which it is but let's
) pretend) then the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an
) establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in
) the
) First Amendment would not apply. That relieves the state and I of the
) burden
) of having to think of Anthroposophy as a religion. This means I could
) take a
) more hard-line approach in my criticism of Anthroposophy because
) Anthroposophy would no longer have Constitutional freedom of religion
) protection. (G) First I have to figure out what it is...any ideas?
)
Yeah..fantasy. Its pure dead brilliant so it is. You can spout any
bullshit you like, call it "the way", and then burn anybody who
disagrees, and justify it by calling yourself a Guardian of The Truth or
similar, and then that makes if ok for you and all your pals to consider
yourselves better in every way than anybody else is. Good innit?
Personally, I'd have Steiner right up there along with Michael Ende,
Raymond Feist, Janny Wurts, JRR Tolkein, Mark Twain....
Right. Next question?
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:36:44 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Abd wrote:
)At 06:13 PM 8/15/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
))I think this is quite right. If it is a religion then I my general respect
))for freedom of religion comes into play and I restrict my criticism to
))those aspects which intrude into public and political life. If it is not a
))religion (but a philosphy say) then the whole thing is fair game for
))criticism.
)
)Yes. Here is an example where Mr. Farrell agrees with anthroposophy. One
)ought to have a clue that it is a philosophy just by the name!
It's not clear to me that I agreed with anthroposphy. Nor do I accept that
the use of a name with a particular form automatically makes it a
philosophy, any more than I think that religion called Christian Science is
a science.
)
)(Someone is likely to post quotations from anthroposophical publications
)about outside criticism being disregarded. That is essentially a claim that
)understanding of a subject is necessary before criticizing it; it is only a
)warning that ignorant criticism might be ignored by the "esoteric school,"
)not that such criticism is forbidden -- for, after all, how could it be?)
)
This is a possible interpretation of the foreword to Anthroposphical works
that has been posted here more than once. I don't believe Abd's
interpretation fits the actual behaviour of Steiner, nor that of subsequent
Anthroposophists. I suggest that a more correct interpretation of the
foreword and its intent is to shield followers from external criticism. I
think this interpretation is of a piece with other aspects of Anthroposphy
which are about secrecy and deception.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Searching for that dream home? Try http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au for
all your property needs.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:15:31 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
Peter F. wrote:
)If it is a religion then I my general respect for freedom of religion comes
)into play and I restrict my criticism to those aspects which intrude into
)public and political life. If it is not a religion (but a philosphy say)
)then the whole thing is fair game for criticism.
I think it's fair game anyway. Religious ideas *are* part of public life.
Respecting freedom of religion, to me, means defending people's right to
believe what they want or (within very generous boundaries) practice what
they want, but it doesn't mean I can't reply to or discuss religious ideas.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:18:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)Most of the objections I've seen here are based on the idea that students
)in a religious school are exposed to religious services or classes.
You seem (in this and other posts) to be surprised by the fact that
religious schools require their students to join in various religious
activities.
And my point was nearly the opposite of what you posit above, Abd. Here it
is again cut and pasted:
)Your argument apparently rests on the idea that not all the classes the
)school is offering are "religious" even if the school is religious. But the
)kids take part in the life of the school, some activities are religious and
)some aren't, but the kids don't have a choice between them.
A school is a package deal, in other words, and you can't "sponsor" the math
class (Abd's favored example of a "secular service" the school is providing
to the state) and not also be "sponsoring" the religious assembly or the
teachers who talk about their religious beliefs etc at that school.
And I gave a whole bunch of examples of how religion is often interwoven in
other aspects of the curriculum at a religious school, everything from a
language arts workbook a Catholic school was using in which all the grammar
exercises were passages about Jesus, to Waldorf's math instruction, which
includes anthroposophic lessons about the "qualities" of numbers (and
"holism," which is why they don't teach 2 + 2 = 4 but inform the children
that 4 = 2 + 2). I've thought of a few dozen more examples from my son's
Quaker school since then, but I think you got it.
)So, if students are exposed to religion in school, in the system I
)proposed, it would be because the parents chose to send them to that
)school.
Yes, those parents chose that for their children, but in your scheme, the
rest of us have to help pay for it. Lots of things are taught in religious
schools that I emphatically do *not* want to pay for someone else's children
to be required to sit still and listen to.
)The only way in which such a system could be seen as supporting religious
)education, per se, is that it would make it easier for religious schools to
)form and operate, since the expense of doing so would be reduced,
LOL! That's the only way we could see it that way, eh? Abd, what would
supporting religious schools look like or consist of, if "making it easier
for them to form and operate," by reducing their expenses, i.e., providing
funding, is not it?
)This would, in fact, provide a powerful incentive for private religious
)schools to teach such subjects as evolution, for if a high school
)curriculum included biology, it would necessarily include the theory of
)evolution.
You're right! Now we're getting somewhere.
You've just announced that once the state has gained control of the funding,
it will likely attempt to gain control of the curriculum and various other
aspects of the operation of the school. In this case, hiring and firing
decisions would be impacted, since if they are going to teach evolution,
they can't hire someone who is opposed on religious grounds to the teaching
of evolution. Etc. There would be many ripple effects. For instance,
families who really wanted the undiluted religious experience, complete with
fundamentalist teachings, would pull their children out. The school would
become less religious.
Yup, the state could exert pressure, they could lean on the Biblical
literalists to teach evolution, and maybe they could even stop them from
teaching some of the crazy, wacko stuff.
Is that REALLY what churches and religious groups want? Somebody like me
deciding that what they teach is wacko and crazy, and they should be stopped
. . . and suddenly the power of the state is behind my prejudice (as they
will see it; and who's to say they aren't right?)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:32:59 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
Abd:
)(Someone is likely to post quotations from anthroposophical publications
)about outside criticism being disregarded. That is essentially a claim that
)understanding of a subject is necessary before criticizing it;
It is manipulative - special pleading. It goes without saying that
understanding should be necessary before criticizing it. The reader does not
need to be advised of this, generally (or else every book published should
carry such a disclaimer), and whether people who critique it understand it
is beyond any author's control. Abd is commenting on the literal meaning
rather than the rhetorical function of these frequent disclaimers in
anthroposophical publications.
Diana
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1438
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Let's pretend
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Let's pretend
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: maverick teacher training?
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: free choice of religion
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: free choice of religion
By eastwinds pacific.net.sg
Re: Let's pretend
By dan dandugan.com
RE: free choice of religion
By dan dandugan.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: Let's pretend
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Florida court rules against vouchers for religious schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Let's pretend
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: free choice of religion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:46:57 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
on 8/16/04 10:15 PM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters verizon.net wrote:
) Peter F. wrote:
)) If it is a religion then I my general respect for freedom of religion comes
)) into play and I restrict my criticism to those aspects which intrude into
)) public and political life. If it is not a religion (but a philosphy say)
)) then the whole thing is fair game for criticism.
)
) I think it's fair game anyway. Religious ideas *are* part of public life.
) Respecting freedom of religion, to me, means defending people's right to
) believe what they want or (within very generous boundaries) practice what
) they want, but it doesn't mean I can't reply to or discuss religious ideas.
Sharon: Well said Diana. I agree with you. All human systems/ideas should be
open to equal scrutiny, be it politics, art, religion, science or whatever.
Religion began because of man's fear of death which is why people never want
to examine it. They don't want to upset themselves by revealing the
absurdities of their beliefs. The conventional sacred prohibition put upon
the open discussion of religion is one of the last taboos.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:10:19 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
) Abd wrote:
)) Yes. Here is an example where Mr. Farrell agrees with anthroposophy. One
)) ought to have a clue that it is a philosophy just by the name!
Sharon: I don't get how Peter F is agreeing with Anthroposophy here!?
Anyway, we are only *pretending* that Anthroposophy isn't a religion,
remember? Ariosophy and Theosophy are also "sophies", doesn't mean they
aren't religions does it? Anyone can call anything anything they like,
doesn't mean they are right about it. Madonna told Oprah that Cabbala is
science, not religion...doesn't mean Madonna hasn't joined a religious
Jewish mystical sect! I could write my own doctrine and call it Sharosophy
and swear that it isn't a religion, I could even build this belief into my
dogma like Steiner did...doesn't mean I wouldn't be either hopelessly
confused or very sly.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:56:08 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: maverick teacher training?
on 8/16/04 10:14 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
)) Sharon: (snip) I think the way they write "Micha-el" is
)) very interesting indeed. Very deep Anthro pronunciation and meaning there
)) (G).
)
) It's to indicate the Hebrew pronunciation, and is more correct than the 'my
) cull" way that we tend to pronounce the name in English, ignoring the
) dipthong. "El" means "God," and there are lots of Hebrew names that end in
) "el." Daniel, for example, in which we *do* pronounce the final syllable
) correctly. If I'm correct, the middle syllable ("i") in Daniel should be
) long, as in "me," and I think it means "my". I.e., My Judge is God. But
) that is by analogy from the Arabic, I don't know Hebrew.
Sharon: Waldorf must be some kind of fast food franchise or something,
couldn't possibly be a religious school (sarcasm). Ah yes, the tools of
ritual magic...how right you are about El meaning God, though not right
about 'my cull' being an incorrect pronunciation. Language evolves and we
are speaking English, not Hebrew. It's only incorrect to say "Mi cull" if
you are a religious school that worships "Micha-el" and believe that since
God created the world using Hebrew words, they must be powerful magic.
Those of us ex-Waldorfers who have found freedom out here in "normal" really
understand how serious Anthroposophists are about the "right" pronunciations
of things, **especially** of Micha-el. I remember Anthroposophists wandering
the halls whispering "Micha-el" with plums in their mouths and oh-so-much
nauseating reverence. Too bad they didn't just point out *why* Mich-ael had
to be pronounced like that. "We're just teaching children stories from
around the world....we are nonsectarian...". (bullshit!)
Below find an Anthro vowel pronunciation key taken from Ms. Efta's Eurythmy
reports...(you can start training your daughter now for Waldorf readiness).
At least when you get a Eurythmy report you'll be able to fathom things
without having to spend years of your life reading and trying to understand
mumbo jumbo like I did after leaving Waldorf. You won't need to wade through
Rosicrucian self-initiation books and Steiner books up the wazoo. You'll
automatically understand things like: "We began the sessions with E-Ah-O as
before" and [she should make a] "5 pointed star with Ah, U and L. She may
use little objects to help her make the star if she needs to" or [she should
repeat] "E-Ah-O 3 times"...
Ah as in father
A as in day
E as in sweet
O as in hope
U as in moon
'Scuse me while I go utter B B B three times to form a protective shield/
hut-like enclosure around myself to protect me from evil spirits...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:12:10 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)Most of the objections I've seen here are based on the idea that students
)in a religious school are exposed to religious services or classes.
)However, the system I proposed would necessarily involve additional expense
)for parents choosing to send their children to religious schools.
Abd, have you changed your mind, then, that people paying extra for
religious education are being unfairly burdened, double-taxed, etc.?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:15:40 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote previously:
)If a school were, for religious reasons perhaps, of the opinion that the
)theory of evolution was false, they would nevertheless be required to teach
)it such that students could pass a test regarding the theory. They might
)*also* teach that this theory is false.
It's very tempting to make fun of this proposal that they teach 1) that
evolution is true and 2) that evolution is false, but trying to be serious
here, this would be another example of the state pressuring a religious
group to alter or undermine its own teachings, and that's one of the main
things that separation of church and state is supposed to guard against.
)What if there is a religious belief that is actually conducive to
)education, that is, a school operating according to this belief is *in
)reality* more successful in education, i.e. in developing
)skills and imparting secular knowledge? In fact, this might even be
)possible with regard to Waldorf education (but I certainly don't know that
)it is).
You might want to start looking into that!
Or maybe I could just tell you it isn't true, and since you must accept my
testimony as true unless controverted, you'll have to believe me. :)
No, seriously, what is wrong with this theory is that you can't see what's
wrong with it. There is no particular belief that is "in reality" more
conducive to education . . . education is people and their beliefs and their
goals, it isn't magic. There aren't formulas you can come up with or buttons
you can push, and there isn't a religious truth that, we will all someday
understand, yields an Ultimate Method of some sort. This is a pluralistic
society and that is not going to change any time soon. The religious "fix"
is no less ideology-driven than the technological "fix." There is nothing
you will ever be able to hold up and get everyone to agree (short of force)
that it is "in reality" the correct way to educate children, any more than
you will ever get us all to agree that you recognize Universal Spiritual
Truth when you see it. It is the same mindset and to some people a
frightening one.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:34:20 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 10:18 PM 8/16/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)Abd wrote:
) )Most of the objections I've seen here are based on the idea that students
) )in a religious school are exposed to religious services or classes.
)
)You seem (in this and other posts) to be surprised by the fact that
)religious schools require their students to join in various religious
)activities.
Goes to show how deceptive "seem" can be.
Some religious schools require their students to particpate in religious
activities, some do not. My understanding has been that Catholic schools do
not, or at least that generally *some* of the religious activities are not
obligatory for non-Catholic students. There'd likely be, at assemblies, an
opening invocation, for example....
)A school is a package deal, in other words, and you can't "sponsor" the math
)class (Abd's favored example of a "secular service" the school is providing
)to the state) and not also be "sponsoring" the religious assembly or the
)teachers who talk about their religious beliefs etc at that school.
So, by this argument, any contract for services with an individual or group
of individuals is "sponsoring" the activities of that individual outside
the scope of the employment.
Yes, such a contract will tend to support the other activities, but this
kind of support is generally not considered to be state sponsorship of
religion; only if the contract process prefers the religious contractor
would it cross the constitutional line.
The sun shines on the just and the unjust.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:48:31 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 08:12 AM 8/17/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)Abd wrote:
) )Most of the objections I've seen here are based on the idea that students
) )in a religious school are exposed to religious services or classes.
) )However, the system I proposed would necessarily involve additional expense
) )for parents choosing to send their children to religious schools.
)
)Abd, have you changed your mind, then, that people paying extra for
)religious education are being unfairly burdened, double-taxed, etc.?
)Diana
No, not at all.
There is an extra burden that is fair and there is an extra burden that is
unfair.
First of all, the system I proposed is not a scheme for funding "religious
education." Rather, it is a scheme for funding *private education." Where
private education results in a savings to the state, while providing
equivalent service (as measured by the same testing as used in public
schools), it is equitable for the state to reimburse the private school, up
to as much as the amount saved.
Because setting up independent private schools takes capital, and because
the state must maintain public schools, available to all students without
fee, there is a certain inefficiency; the private schools should bear the
burden of that. Thus, necessarily, the reimbursement to private schools
would not reach the level of funding of public schools. That funding
shortfall must come from private sources, not from the state. It might be
provided by private charity or it might come from fees paid by parents;
likely it would come from both; but such schools, like present private
schools, would generally offer a certain level of scholarship assistance.
This argument is quite general. However, if one is dead-set against
religious education, why not just admit it? Being neutral about religion
would not imply opposing a benefit to religion when that benefit not only
does not come at a cost to the public, but at a *savings* to the public.
This, in fact, would not be public subsidy of religion, it would *remain*,
as at present, religious subsidy of the public schools, only to a lesser
degree.
Get this: Waldorf Schools save the taxpayers substantial sums per student
that would otherwise attend public schools. What I'd propose would lower
that subsidy, not eliminate it, unless it were implemented to the extreme,
in which case there would be no subsidy in either direction.
I'd think this would not be difficult to understand. But ideologues find
the simplest things difficult.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:23:00 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
.... any more than
) you will ever get us all to agree that you recognize Universal Spiritual
) Truth when you see it. It is the same mindset and to some people a
) frightening one.
) Diana
)
But "Universal Spiritual Truth[s]" do, of course, exist.
c
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:03:17 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
charlie frey wrote:
) But "Universal Spiritual Truth[s]" do, of course, exist.
Is that what they teach in Waldorf schools? Do enlighten us.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:42:24 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd writes many words explaining again why he is in favor of the state
subsidizing private education, some of which I agree with and some I don't,
but all irrelevant when it comes to *religious* schools. Abd has never yet
taken up the questions associated with why the state is forbidden
constitutionally to fund religious schools, he continues to argue simply
that it is not a problem, with various arguments about saving people money
all of which are irrelevant. He's obviously getting irritated since he
resorts to irrelevancies and concludes with ad hominem.
)if one is dead-set against religious education, why not just admit it?
I guess if I were dead-set against religious education, I'd admit it.
However, I'm quite a fan of religious education, in various forms. My child
attends a religious school that we are very happy with. I've worked on
fundraising committees for the school - picture me, sitting in someone's
living room, asking them to write a large check for a religious school -
I've done it. So I guess if I were "against religious education" I'd be
quite the hypocrite.
I'm against taxpayer support of religious education.
)I'd think this would not be difficult to understand. But ideologues find
)the simplest things difficult.
That's called an ad hominem argument, Abd, I guess I shouldn't reply?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:42:24 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd:
)Some religious schools require their students to particpate in religious
)activities, some do not.
And so will your voucher program permit participation only by those who do
not require participation in religious activities? A criterion I don't
recall you mentioning previously. (And there, already, they will be accused,
rightly, of discriminating on religious grounds, as this policy would favor
the less religious or less strict or less fundamentalist-type schools. You
don't seem to notice that none of this state control stuff is actually doing
a favor to religion in general; you're asking the state to attempt to dilute
and lessen religious fundamentalism.)
Or will it perhaps require devising some formula to determine what amount of
subsidy a school is eligible for? More for the schools that *don't* insist
everyone participate in religious activities, and less for those which do?
I'd be skeptical of such a formula, of course - but it would still be nice
to see some attempt to address these problems rather than pretend they don't
exist.
)My understanding has been that Catholic schools do not, or at least that
)generally *some* of the religious activities are not obligatory for
non-)Catholic students. There'd likely be, at assemblies, an opening
invocation, )for example....
And my understanding is the opposite. Perhaps this varies by locale. We
interviewed at Catholic schools a long time ago and were told in no
uncertain terms that all students attended Mass, and that religion class was
not optional. They'd met our type before :)
I wrote:
)A school is a package deal, in other words, and you can't "sponsor" the
)math class (Abd's favored example of a "secular service" the school is
)providing to the state) and not also be "sponsoring" the religious assembly
)or the teachers who talk about their religious beliefs etc at that school.
Abd:
)So, by this argument, any contract for services with an individual or group
)of individuals is "sponsoring" the activities of that individual outside
)the scope of the employment.
Yes, generally. That's called ethics. I don't pay people for services or
products or do business with people if I consider their company or
organization unethical, or if they generally support causes that I disagree
with, so that some of my money or time would be going to support that cause
if I work with them. Or at least I try not to, not that it's always easy. I
don't seem to be the only one who's thought of this, either.
)Yes, such a contract will tend to support the other activities,
Whew, well at least we've gotten that far, yes it will "tend to support"
them. That being the main reason they're doing it . . . you act like it's a
big coincidence that never, possibly could have occurred to you before now.
)but this kind of support is generally not considered to be state
)sponsorship of religion; only if the contract process prefers the religious
)contractor would it cross the constitutional line.
"Generally not considered" is a little fluffy. Not considered by who? As
Sharon pointed out, there are a number of cases in the courts right now
trying to sort out what would be considered state sponsorship of religion.
(Such as PLANS' lawsuit.) Obviously my opinion differs from yours as to what
constitutes such sponsorship. Providing them with money is pretty clear-cut.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:06:17 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
To quote one of the high initiates of the 20th century:
"If you've gotta ask, you'll never know."
--Louis Armstrong
Barnaby McEwan wrote:
)
)
) charlie frey wrote:
)
) ) But "Universal Spiritual Truth[s]" do, of course, exist.
)
) Is that what they teach in Waldorf schools? Do enlighten us.
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:07:05 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)First of all, the system I proposed is not a scheme for funding "religious
)education." Rather, it is a scheme for funding *private education."
I recognize that. It is a scheme that has the effect of funding religious
education, however, and you need to deal with the *reasons* why that is
constitutionally disallowed. Just because your scheme (supposedly) wasn't
set up for that explicit purpose, the fact that it has that outcome is not
irrelevant, it is a matter that would have to be addressed. In fact, the
numbers show that this might well be the *main* outcome. The courts have,
indeed, previously ruled that where a voucher scheme has the main outcome of
funding religious education, it is unconstitutional.
)Where private education results in a savings to the state, while providing
)equivalent service (as measured by the same testing as used in public
)schools), it is equitable for the state to reimburse the private school, up
)to as much as the amount saved.
"Equitable" only as long as dollar amounts are the only variable being
considered. When it is taken into account that the scheme is now playing
favorites among various religious entities, there is no way it will appear
equitable to everyone. The promotion of religious values *matters*. It
matters to you, and it matters to me. It is not all about dollar amounts -
or we would not even be having this conversation. Obviously no one chooses
religious education because it is *cheaper*!
)Get this: Waldorf Schools save the taxpayers substantial sums per student
)that would otherwise attend public schools.
You've ignored all arguments concerning the fact that families make
*contributions* to schools as well as consuming resources, of course, as
well as the ways public schools support democratic values and thrive best on
citizen participation. You are essentially saying private school families
are doing some big favor to the public schools by saving them a few erasers
and a computer or two, and I would make exactly the opposite argument -
these families are a big loss to the public school. Waldorf parents are
among the most involved parents on the planet, in my experience, and
imagining the commitment, energy, and activism of these parents restored to
public schools sets one to dreaming of a better day . . .
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:08:40 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Charlie:
)To quote one of the high initiates of the 20th century:
)"If you've gotta ask, you'll never know."
)--Louis Armstrong
Which *quite* sums up the attitude of Waldorf to its clientele.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:08:49 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Awwwww...cut it out.
What a silly thing to say.
This habit of saying 'what Waldorf does' is so tedious.
While crusading for open-mindedness and clarity, you should be careful
about assuming that your experience of something covers the gamut.
I am "Waldorf",and it doesn't sum up my attitude---mine is quite the
opposite, actually. I often get frustrated with a lack of curiosity at
my school, and I feel that the efforts I make to educate parents about
Waldorf/Anthroposophy are seen as pushing it upon them.
So please spare us the generalizations concerning what Waldorf does.
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Charlie:
) )To quote one of the high initiates of the 20th century:
) )"If you've gotta ask, you'll never know."
) )--Louis Armstrong
)
)
)
) Which *quite* sums up the attitude of Waldorf to its clientele.
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:17:12 +0800
From: "Eastwinds" (eastwinds pacific.net.sg)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Hi Charlie,
I need to write a critique/essay of 4000 words on steiner and waldorf, any ideas on where i can get some references, or reading materials?
thanks,
carrie
----- Original Message -----
From: charlie frey
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:08 AM
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGbNNrJTa/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Awwwww...cut it out.
What a silly thing to say.
This habit of saying 'what Waldorf does' is so tedious.
While crusading for open-mindedness and clarity, you should be careful
about assuming that your experience of something covers the gamut.
I am "Waldorf",and it doesn't sum up my attitude---mine is quite the
opposite, actually. I often get frustrated with a lack of curiosity at
my school, and I feel that the efforts I make to educate parents about
Waldorf/Anthroposophy are seen as pushing it upon them.
So please spare us the generalizations concerning what Waldorf does.
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Charlie:
) )To quote one of the high initiates of the 20th century:
) )"If you've gotta ask, you'll never know."
) )--Louis Armstrong
)
)
)
) Which *quite* sums up the attitude of Waldorf to its clientele.
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGbNNrJTf/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:51:01 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Sharon Lombard Miller, you wrote,
)The conventional sacred prohibition put upon
)the open discussion of religion is one of the last taboos.
It's more practical than sacred. Like church-state separation, it
helps us to get on with out business rather than being at each
other's throats!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:08:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Diana, you wrote,
)It's very tempting to make fun of this proposal that they teach 1) that
)evolution is true and 2) that evolution is false, but trying to be serious
)here, this would be another example of the state pressuring a religious
)group to alter or undermine its own teachings, and that's one of the main
)things that separation of church and state is supposed to guard against.
Steiner was right in emphasizing that children look up to adults as
moral models. In the outside world it's called "role modeling." I
don't think teaching children contradictory theories is teaching them
to think for themselves, I think it's just confusing. Teachers should
have -integrity-. I would refuse a job teaching evolution in a
Christian academy because I think their theory is wrong.
The traditional Waldorf teacher tricks of inculcating
Anthroposophical ideas without being explicit about their origins
(and that only a miniscule sect believes them) lacks integrity.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:15:16 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Charlie, Charlie . . . .LOL over here,
If it doesn't sum up your attitude, then why did you say it? If you don't
want people to think "If you have to ask, you'll never know" is a common
reply from a Waldorf teacher, then (since you are one), I suggest next time
you not give that reply.
Diana
Charlie:
)Awwwww...cut it out.
)What a silly thing to say.
)This habit of saying 'what Waldorf does' is so tedious.
)While crusading for open-mindedness and clarity, you should be careful
)about assuming that your experience of something covers the gamut.
)I am "Waldorf",and it doesn't sum up my attitude---mine is quite the
)opposite, actually. I often get frustrated with a lack of curiosity at
)my school, and I feel that the efforts I make to educate parents about
)Waldorf/Anthroposophy are seen as pushing it upon them.
)So please spare us the generalizations concerning what Waldorf does.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:18:45 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
charlie frey wrote:
)
) To quote one of the high initiates of the 20th century:
) "If you've gotta ask, you'll never know."
) --Louis Armstrong
But hang on, if there are those in the know about universal spiritual
truths, and those who never will be, then Waldorf education is not
really education but a way of maintaining a reincarnating spiritual
élite.
Hey, maybe that's got something to do with what Steiner taught about
individuals within races progressing spiritually and other individuals
regressing and being left behind and then just sort of, ahem,
disappearing?
'No matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up.'
--Lily Tomlin.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:30:06 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
I'm about to start teaching 7th grade, so I feel totally qualified to
say, "Whatever."
Look at how the question was put to me, and tell me if you think it
warranted a careful answer.
But I'll bite anyway.
Are there Universal Spiritual Truths?
Yeah..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Or, as Steiner might have said, 'Cultivate an awareness of your humanity
and the humanity of others.' If everybody did the above, it is as close
as you'll get to a guarantee of a better world.
That is the aim of Anthroposophy and what Rudolph Steiner wished for the
world.
c
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Charlie, Charlie . . . .LOL over here,
)
) If it doesn't sum up your attitude, then why did you say it? If you
) don't
) want people to think "If you have to ask, you'll never know" is a common
) reply from a Waldorf teacher, then (since you are one), I suggest next
) time
) you not give that reply.
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) Charlie:
) )Awwwww...cut it out.
) )What a silly thing to say.
) )This habit of saying 'what Waldorf does' is so tedious.
) )While crusading for open-mindedness and clarity, you should be careful
) )about assuming that your experience of something covers the gamut.
) )I am "Waldorf",and it doesn't sum up my attitude---mine is quite the
) )opposite, actually. I often get frustrated with a lack of curiosity at
) )my school, and I feel that the efforts I make to educate parents about
) )Waldorf/Anthroposophy are seen as pushing it upon them.
) )So please spare us the generalizations concerning what Waldorf does.
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:44:24 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Diana:
) ) I think it's fair game anyway. Religious ideas *are* part of public
)life.
) ) Respecting freedom of religion, to me, means defending people's right to
) ) believe what they want or (within very generous boundaries) practice
)what
) ) they want, but it doesn't mean I can't reply to or discuss religious
)ideas.
)
)Sharon:
Well said Diana. I agree with you. All human systems/ideas should be
)open to equal scrutiny, be it politics, art, religion, science or whatever.
)Religion began because of man's fear of death which is why people never
)want
)to examine it. They don't want to upset themselves by revealing the
)absurdities of their beliefs. The conventional sacred prohibition put upon
)the open discussion of religion is one of the last taboos.
)
)
Peter F. responds:
Oh no!! Defending myself against Diana and Sharon! What is the world coming
to. Many of my friends believe in one god in three bits. This is not an
issue for me. If that belief or the other beliefs that goe with it intrude
into their behavior in ways which I think are harmful then they are fair
game. Should I routinely argue against religious belief per se? I have to
admit I am moving in that direction. I think it is difficult to support the
idea that religion does more good than harm in the world today.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
In the market for a car? Buy, sell or browse at CarPoint:
http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/b?cg=link&ci=ninemsn&tu=http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au?refid=hotmail_tagline
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:03:43 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
charlie frey wrote:
)
)I'm about to start teaching 7th grade, so I feel totally qualified to
)say, "Whatever."
) Look at how the question was put to me, and tell me if you think it
)warranted a careful answer.
) But I'll bite anyway.
)Are there Universal Spiritual Truths?
)Yeah..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
)Or, as Steiner might have said, 'Cultivate an awareness of your humanity
)and the humanity of others.' If everybody did the above, it is as close
)as you'll get to a guarantee of a better world.
)That is the aim of Anthroposophy and what Rudolph Steiner wished for the
)world.
)c
We must worm our way through. . . . [I]n order to do what we want to do, at
least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but
because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them. [4]
[W]ith these things the outer form is of the utmost importance. Never call
the verse a "prayer" but a "school opening verse." Do see to it that people
do not hear the expression "prayer" used by a teacher. This will go a long
way towards overcoming the prejudice that this is an anthroposophical
school.[13]
These are quotes from Steiner taken from
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles/Free_Inquiry.html
These are not consistent with your claim above.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Play Love Hunt to win a $9000 holiday and find love!
http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mclovehunt/lovehunt.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:17:13 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Thank goodness we do not live in turn-of-the-century Germany, or we
would probably have to heed this advice.
c
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) charlie frey wrote:
) )
) )I'm about to start teaching 7th grade, so I feel totally qualified to
) )say, "Whatever."
) ) Look at how the question was put to me, and tell me if you think it
) )warranted a careful answer.
) ) But I'll bite anyway.
) )Are there Universal Spiritual Truths?
) )Yeah..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
) )Or, as Steiner might have said, 'Cultivate an awareness of your humanity
) )and the humanity of others.' If everybody did the above, it is as close
) )as you'll get to a guarantee of a better world.
) )That is the aim of Anthroposophy and what Rudolph Steiner wished for the
) )world.
) )c
)
)
) We must worm our way through. . . . [I]n order to do what we want to do,
) at
) least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to,
) but
) because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them. [4]
)
) [W]ith these things the outer form is of the utmost importance. Never
) call
) the verse a "prayer" but a "school opening verse." Do see to it that
) people
) do not hear the expression "prayer" used by a teacher. This will go a
) long
) way towards overcoming the prejudice that this is an anthroposophical
) school.[13]
)
) These are quotes from Steiner taken from
) http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles/Free_Inquiry.html
)
) These are not consistent with your claim above.
)
) See you, Peter
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Play Love Hunt to win a $9000 holiday and find love!
) http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mclovehunt/lovehunt.aspx
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:47:59 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
charlie frey wrote:
)
)Thank goodness we do not live in turn-of-the-century Germany, or we
)would probably have to heed this advice.
)c
Oh. I thought these were universal truths. They didn't apply in turn of the
century Germany?
See you, Peter
)
)Peter Farrell wrote:
) )
) ) charlie frey wrote:
) ) )
) ) )I'm about to start teaching 7th grade, so I feel totally qualified to
) ) )say, "Whatever."
) ) ) Look at how the question was put to me, and tell me if you think it
) ) )warranted a careful answer.
) ) ) But I'll bite anyway.
) ) )Are there Universal Spiritual Truths?
) ) )Yeah..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
) ) )Or, as Steiner might have said, 'Cultivate an awareness of your
)humanity
) ) )and the humanity of others.' If everybody did the above, it is as
)close
) ) )as you'll get to a guarantee of a better world.
) ) )That is the aim of Anthroposophy and what Rudolph Steiner wished for
)the
) ) )world.
) ) )c
) )
) )
) ) We must worm our way through. . . . [I]n order to do what we want to do,
) ) at
) ) least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to,
) ) but
) ) because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them. [4]
) )
) ) [W]ith these things the outer form is of the utmost importance. Never
) ) call
) ) the verse a "prayer" but a "school opening verse." Do see to it that
) ) people
) ) do not hear the expression "prayer" used by a teacher. This will go a
) ) long
) ) way towards overcoming the prejudice that this is an anthroposophical
) ) school.[13]
) )
) ) These are quotes from Steiner taken from
) ) http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles/Free_Inquiry.html
) )
) ) These are not consistent with your claim above.
) )
) ) See you, Peter
) )
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:36:24 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Florida court rules against vouchers for religious schools
From today's NY Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/education/17voucher.html
Note that:
"In its decision, the Florida court acknowledged that the voucher law barred
religious schools from forcing voucher students to pray or 'profess a
specific ideological belief.'"
IMO, that wouldn't be sufficient. Thinking about the religious activities at
my son's school, certainly no one is ever forced to pray and no one would
insist that a child profess a specific belief. That leaves the door open to
a lot of religious influence, however. Like I said, my son's attended
probably 50 to 60 Quaker meetings and nobody has to order him to actually
pray for that to result in a fair amount of exposure to the doctrines and
practices.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:48:19 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Let's pretend
Peter F.:
)Oh no!! Defending myself against Diana and Sharon! What is the world coming
)to. Many of my friends believe in one god in three bits. This is not an
)issue for me. If that belief or the other beliefs that goe with it intrude
)into their behavior in ways which I think are harmful then they are fair
)game. Should I routinely argue against religious belief per se? I have to
)admit I am moving in that direction. I think it is difficult to support the
)idea that religion does more good than harm in the world today.
I agree that Sharon and I are formidable (gg) but I didn't mean that you or
anyone else should speak out against religious belief per se or should make
a habit of deconstructing friends' religious beliefs :) I don't mean to
speak against religious belief per se, myself. I just mean that there is a
right to engage religious ideas - why should there be a taboo against
discussing certain ideas just because they are religious? Well, how to make
and keep friends is different :) I have friends I don't discuss religion
with, that's for sure.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:19:41 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Hi Charlie,
You wrote to Diana:
"While crusading for open-mindedness and clarity, you should be careful
about assuming that your experience of something covers the gamut."
I agree that it is never a good idea to generalize but... I understand
where Diana is coming from. Believe me when I say this is not simply her
experience. Can you not understand that Diana's experience is not unique by
virtue of the existence of this list, the PLANS web site, a support list for
survivors and an international controversy?
Charlie wrote:
"I am "Waldorf",and it doesn't sum up my attitude---mine is quite the
opposite, actually. I often get frustrated with a lack of curiosity at
my school, and I feel that the efforts I make to educate parents about
Waldorf/Anthroposophy are seen as pushing it upon them.
So please spare us the generalizations concerning what Waldorf does."
I appreciate hearing about your frustration. I believe you. I wonder,
though, if the lack of curiosity stems from a lack of any real reason to be
curious in the first place? What do you think parents *should* be curious
about? Alternatively, perhaps your school is an anomaly in that all
important information about reincarnation, soul work, Steiner's epochs and
theories (racial, child development, etc) ARE shared with parents prior to
them enrolling their children in your school?
Perhaps there is no need for parents to be curious about the morning prayer
or eurythmy or Michaelmas (Mich-Ah-Ehl-Mas) or the teacher seeing their
children as incarnating souls at your school. Maybe they have chosen to send
their kids to your particular school *because* of the anthroposophical
foundation as per the outreach material, web site and/or parent information
meetings? Can you shed some light on this subject - perhaps all our
frustration levels will decrease. Who knows...?
- Walden
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Charlie:
) )To quote one of the high initiates of the 20th century:
) )"If you've gotta ask, you'll never know."
) )--Louis Armstrong
)
)
)
) Which *quite* sums up the attitude of Waldorf to its clientele.
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Great Credit Card for You Today
You can find a credit card to fit your credit needs.
All types of credit cards -- 0% APRs, Rewards, & Bad Credit.
http://click.topica.com/caacvgub1dkiGb2QZUTf/411Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1439
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Let's pretend
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: free choice of religion
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: free choice of religion
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
more on vouchers
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: free choice of religion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Universal Spiritual Truths in Waldorf (was re: free choice of religion)
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:34:03 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
) Peter F.:
)) Oh no!! Defending myself against Diana and Sharon! What is the world coming
)
)) to. Many of my friends believe in one god in three bits. This is not an
)) issue for me. If that belief or the other beliefs that goe with it intrude
)) into their behavior in ways which I think are harmful then they are fair
)) game. Should I routinely argue against religious belief per se? I have to
)) admit I am moving in that direction. I think it is difficult to support the
)) idea that religion does more good than harm in the world today.
Sharon: I've got friends with really wacky belief systems...I mean REALLY
wacky! (G) Sometimes they'll say things and I'll just let it go, (just roll
my eyes a bit or snort), but sometimes I'll say something like "You're nuts
because....". I usually talk openly about religion with my friends, I've
even argued with Christians that there have never really been Christians
because Christianity is just an extension of Paganism, absorbing just about
everything except Goddesses. My gay Mormon friend (paradox alert) sometimes
gets upset with me over religion but his boyfriend agrees more often than
not about Mormonism. (We've both read "Mormon America" and have tried to get
our friend to read it for his own sake (g)). The boyfriend even encouraged
me to visit the new Mormon tabernacle in NYC before it was closed to the
outside world, unfortunately I didn't make it. My friends with really wacky
belief systems never seem to change their beliefs but I love them anyway. I
don't think they do much harm if any, but I know what you mean when you say
it's hard to support the idea that religion does more good than harm in the
world today, (though if you look at the past the same could be said don't
you think?) It seems to me that the people behind various movements/belief
systems are the ones causing the harm by manipulating people to cause harm
with religion as a tool.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:45:16 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
) charlie frey wrote:
))
)) Thank goodness we do not live in turn-of-the-century Germany, or we
)) would probably have to heed this advice.
)) c
)
) Oh. I thought these were universal truths. They didn't apply in turn of the
) century Germany?
Sharon: Charlie was meaning that Steiner said this so that the Nazi's
wouldn't wipe out his movement. He was ducking from the Nazis. You'd have to
look at the dates that these things were said to see if there's any truth to
Charlie's theory, though Steiner died in 1925, six years before the Nazis
got into power. Charlie, if that's the case then why is this same sentiment
still reflected in Anthro publications today? I'd argue that it has long
been customary for the Anthroposophical movement to offer only the "outer
form" of Anthroposophy to parents not "in the know," as reflected in the
following collection of more recent quotes by Anthroposophists. A press
agent for Anthroposophy says:
The task that needs to be lovingly taken up, says Barkoff, is utterly
concrete: convey information, supply visible impressions (e.g., the bread
baked by children at a school, or a tour of the top floor of the
Goetheanum), or tell simple human stories. Anthroposophy needs to be dealt
with as a phenomenon. The press agent has to convey the outer appearance of
things rather than the essential core. A deep esoteric background is
necessary to make the essential core comprehensible. (Jungel & Stockmar,
2000, p. 12)
A sixty-year veteran of Anthroposophy‹teacher, writer, and lecturer, Roy
Wilkinson‹states:
It has been known for parents to say that they like the school, but wish it
were divorced from certain "crazy" ideas which they may have garnered, or
which a teacher may have expressed. The Waldorf school and the "crazy" ideas
are, however, inseparable. Waldorf schools would not exist if they were not
related to these ideas. (Wilkinson, 1996, p. 17)
Another well-known Waldorf educator writes:
[A]s practiced in the C.I.A., there is a "need to know" element in the
discourse-dynamics, even in a school! The Receptionist does not "need to
know" of the arcane spiritual background of geology teaching in Class 6.
(Whitehead, 1993, p 15)
And another example:
[M]atters pertaining to the use of certain textual material (thoughts,
quotations, verses, etc.) which is available to the Waldorf school teacher
as an aid for his practical and inner development as a teacher, are another
example where a safeguard is needed from indiscriminate sharing. (Leist,
1987, p. 15)
An Anthroposophist in the Netherlands writes:
Anthroposophy has always been valued in the cultural life of the
Netherlands. Its contribution to education, health, care of the handicapped,
agriculture, architecture, and other areas of society is widely recognized
and respected, often without knowledge of the philosophical ideas behind it.
The latter was not necessary and still is not necessary. What matters most
for society is the active work for the good of humanity; anthroposophy does
not have to be "sold." (Dunselman, 2000, p. 3)
Like Charlie, not all Anthroposophists deny that Waldorf is a religious
school or wish to hide this fact. Eugene Schwartz, once director of Waldorf
teacher training at Sunbridge College, Spring Valley, New York, made the
following remarks about the Waldorf controversy, excerpted from his talk
given on November 13, 1999, at a conference to which he invited Waldorf
critic Dan Dugan to speak. A transcript of the talk, Waldorf Education‹For
Our Times Or Against Them?, can be found in the "articles" section on
http://www.waldorfcritics.org :
I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the child is going to
go through one religious experience after another. And if any of the teacher
trainees in the room feel that I¹m not saying that clearly enough to you,
well here it is guys, if I haven¹t said it to you a hundred times already:
when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children religious experiences,
we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf education. (paragraph 21)
To deny the religious basis of Waldorf education I would say it again to
satisfy public school superintendents, or a talk show host, or a newspaper
reporter is very, very wrong. And the Waldorf leadership, I would say is
waffling on this matter. I would say we are religious schools. Religious
schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious schools
light‹whatever you want to call it. (paragraph 23)
The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don¹t say I
didn¹t tell you guys‹ten years ago! Stop pussyfooting around. Tell everybody
what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them know then.
(paragraph 25)
If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work. Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it¹s there.
(paragraph 26) (Schwartz, 1999, November 13, retrieved from
http://www.waldorfcritics.org ).
Schwartz later wrote to Dan Dugan to say that he was fired from Sunbridge
after giving his speech and was demoted to Waldorf teacher.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:50:36 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
) Sharon: Charlie was meaning that Steiner said this so that the Nazi's
) wouldn't wipe out his movement. He was ducking from the Nazis. You'd
) have to
) look at the dates that these things were said to see if there's any
) truth to
) Charlie's theory, though Steiner died in 1925, six years before the
) Nazis
) got into power.
Well, let's see. Peter F. quoted things that Steiner wrote or said in
1919-1920; I guess that could be thought of as the turn of the century.
The NSDAP (Nazi party) did not exist until 1920 when Hitler
reconstituted the DAP (German Workers' Party) as the NSDAP (National
Socialist German Workers' Party) under his leadership. At this time
membership was tiny and it would develop no real national following
until Hitler left prison in 1925. If Steiner had heard of the NSDAP at
that time, I doubt whether he'd have seen it as a threat. More likely,
he'd have viewed it as a rough-and-ready manifestation of the Germanic
racial spirit.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:12:52 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Charlie said:
)But I'll bite anyway.
Charlie . . . no one was fishing.
)Are there Universal Spiritual Truths?
I think you may have forgotten that nobody asked you what universal
spiritual truths you believed in. You announced, out of the blue, that there
were universal spiritual truths. I bet you'll go back and look at the post
'cus I bet you really think I was taking shots at your spiritual truths in
my nasty way. But the existence of universal spiritual truths was never at
issue, regardless of my personal views about universal spiritual truths (and
you have no idea what my views may be; the only view I have expressed here
is that it is difficult to get people to agree on them). The whole exchange
was comical. I was talking about education being ideology-driven (in reply
to Abd's idea that there might a religious truth that would "in reality"
result in better education). I was talking about the fact that in a
pluralistic society, different philosophies (educational or spiritual) will
compete, that we cannot expect one particular one to convince everyone. It
was in that context that you felt the need to inform the list that universal
spiritual truths exist.
You seem to think that someone here baited you to talk about your spiritual
beliefs?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:41:34 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 01:42 PM 8/17/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)And so will your voucher program permit participation only by those who do
)not require participation in religious activities?
No. As I proposed it, it would permit participation by any school that
provides education in the state-mandated curriculum. Such a school would be
free to teach additional subjects, and it would be free to require or not
to require attendance at religious services. As it is now.
However, it *could* be made mandatory that, to receive reimbursement,
attendance at specifically religious services not be required. But this is
not what I proposed.
I don't see the need for the restriction; the private schools would be
performing a service for the state at below the cost of providing that
service. If a student does not want to attend services, and I'm not dealing
with the question of parental approval or disapproval, the student remains
perfectly free to attend public schools. The private school is not
obligated to accommodate itself to the religious preferences of its students.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:30:11 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 08:15 AM 8/17/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)Abd wrote previously:
)
)
) )If a school were, for religious reasons perhaps, of the opinion that the
) )theory of evolution was false, they would nevertheless be required to teach
)
) )it such that students could pass a test regarding the theory. They might
) )*also* teach that this theory is false.
)
)It's very tempting to make fun of this proposal that they teach 1) that
)evolution is true and 2) that evolution is false, but trying to be serious
)here, this would be another example of the state pressuring a religious
)group to alter or undermine its own teachings, and that's one of the main
)things that separation of church and state is supposed to guard against.
As usual, the point has been missed, and there is something else which this
brings up. Should the *public* schools be teaching that "evolution is
true?" I don't think so. Evolution is a theory for which the evidence is
strong. That's what should be taught. In public schools, and in private
schools that would want reimbursement for teaching biology in they system I
proposed.
There is no pressure, here, for a religious group to alter its teachings.
The state is willing to pay for education; if biology is included in what
the state is willing to pay for, then the school must teach biology,
including the *theory* of evolution. The students should know what the
majority of biologists think about evolution. They (and the school) are not
required to *agree* with that opinion.
If a school wants to teach something *other* than the state-required
curriculum, it remains perfectly free to do so. If it chooses to teach the
state curriculum, it can be reimbursed for part of the expense of doing so.
I did not conceive of a system where the state would divide up the required
curriculum into sections; where a school could perhaps, be reimbursed for
teaching mathematics, but not for teaching biology if it refused to teach
*biology*. I think that would likely be too complex.
But I see nothing that should offend a creationist if a school, to be
reimbursed part of the cost of educating its students, is required to teach
what is not even controversial: the majority of biologists consider the
theory of evolution to be correct. As I mentioned, the school could *also*
teach that this theory was *not* correct, and they could teach alternate
theories.
But a student in a reimbursed program should be able to answer questions
like, "According to the theory of evolution, ...." If they can do that
successfully, they have been educated as far as facts are concerned.
) )What if there is a religious belief that is actually conducive to
) )education, that is, a school operating according to this belief is *in
) )reality* more successful in education, i.e. in developing
) )skills and imparting secular knowledge? In fact, this might even be
) )possible with regard to Waldorf education (but I certainly don't know that
) )it is).
)
)You might want to start looking into that!
)Or maybe I could just tell you it isn't true, and since you must accept my
)testimony as true unless controverted, you'll have to believe me. :)
Diana has either (1) completely failed to understand the principle of
common law that I've enunciated here in the past, or (2) she is simply
trying to ridicule based on superficial appearances, while knowing that the
application is wrong. I'll assume the first, though the second is equally
likely.
Diana cannot "testify" as she suggested. She doesn't understand what
"testimony" is. She is presenting a conclusion, not testimony.... or, more
accurately, she'd be testifying as to her own conclusion. She might well be
able to testify as to facts which could lead to such a conclusion;
testimony about those facts would fall under the legal principle. "Facts"
means matters of witness. She saw this or that, she heard this or that.
Conclusions are another matter, with some level of exception made with
regard to the conclusion of an expert; even then, the ultimate conclusions
are left to the judge or jury.
)No, seriously, what is wrong with this theory is that you can't see what's
)wrong with it. There is no particular belief that is "in reality" more
)conducive to education . . . education is people and their beliefs and their
)goals, it isn't magic.
Actually, I can think of a belief that is conducive to education. It is a
belief that one is not stupid, a belief that it is possible to understand
the subject matter. More accurately, the *absence* of a belief that the
subject matter is too difficult is conducive to education. I've been aware
of this since I was in grade school, when I noticed that other children
would turn away from certain subjects "because they were too hard."
This is an emotional reaction, possibly coming from trauma; perhaps the
child was made to feel stupid when they didn't understand something. So
they become averse to the whole subject. And this is a serious obstacle to
education at all ages.
) There aren't formulas you can come up with or buttons
)you can push, and there isn't a religious truth that, we will all someday
)understand, yields an Ultimate Method of some sort.
The religious name for the "belief" that is conducive to education is "faith."
However, my comments were not at all intended to establish that there *is*
such a belief; rather, that the effect of belief or beliefs on education is
not a known thing; it is theoretically possible that psychic states,
including beliefs, could have an effect on education. Note that Diana would
probably jump to agree that certain beliefs *hinder* education; yet a
corollary of that would be that certain beliefs could facilitate education.
Perhaps a belief in "science." And perhaps not.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:51:48 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
At 02:07 PM 8/17/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)[I wrote:}
) )First of all, the system I proposed is not a scheme for funding "religious
) )education." Rather, it is a scheme for funding *private education."
)
)I recognize that. It is a scheme that has the effect of funding religious
)education, however, and you need to deal with the *reasons* why that is
)constitutionally disallowed.
The scheme has the effect of funding private education, regardless of
religion. It is religion-neutral. As long as it is set up with care
regarding that, it should not be constitutionally disallowed.
The government may fund the construction of roads. Such roads may
facilitate the holding of religious services. Thus it could be claimed that
the government, by building a road that provides access to a church, the
state is funding religion. But this would be a false claim. The state is
funding *transportation,* and as long as it does this in a way that does
not create a religious preference, there is no conflict with the constitution.
) Just because your scheme (supposedly) wasn't
)set up for that explicit purpose, the fact that it has that outcome is not
)irrelevant, it is a matter that would have to be addressed. In fact, the
)numbers show that this might well be the *main* outcome. The courts have,
)indeed, previously ruled that where a voucher scheme has the main outcome of
)funding religious education, it is unconstitutional.
I asked, previously, for case citations. Diana is simply repeating herself.
"Main outcome" has two possible meanings. If that outcome was the
intention, or can be seen to be the intention of the voucher scheme, then,
indeed, the scheme would be unconstitutional. However, if a scheme has a
legitimate public purpose, not involving the favoring of a particular
religion or of religion as a whole, then it might *not* be unconstitutional
even if it has an outcome favoring one religion over another.
The law about which I know a little is the matter of "blue laws,"
specifically laws requiring that businesses be closed on Sunday. In spite
of the fact that this is a transparent device for favoring Christian
churches which meet on Sunday, as distinct from, say, Jewish services held
on Saturday, or, in more modern times in this country, Muslim services held
on Friday, these laws have generally been held to be constitutional,
because lip service, at least, was paid to arguments that there should be a
day of rest, that this was for the public welfare, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:41:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)As usual, the point has been missed, and there is something else which this
)brings up. Should the *public* schools be teaching that "evolution is
)true?" I don't think so. Evolution is a theory for which the evidence is
)strong. That's what should be taught. In public schools, and in private
)schools that would want reimbursement for teaching biology in they system I
)proposed.
)
I am appalled and angered by this. The *Theory* of Evolution is absolutely
fundamental to modern biology. This is not just some minor addition that can
be added or subtracted to suit lunatic religious beliefs. Should the public
schools be teaching that evolution is *true*?. It should be taught that it
is as true as any other of the major cornerstones of modern science. Are
either of the Theories of Relativity true? How about Newtonian Mechanics?
The periodic table of the elements? Quantum mechanics? Molecular biology?
Perhaps Abd should be arguing that any religion should be taught as a theory
for which the evidence is weak?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Play Love Hunt to win a $9000 holiday and find love!
http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mclovehunt/lovehunt.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:48:49 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
The following is what I took to be the bait, from Barnaby:
charlie frey wrote:
But "Universal Spiritual Truth[s]" do, of course, exist.
Is that what they teach in Waldorf schools? Do enlighten us.
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) Charlie said:
)
) )But I'll bite anyway.
)
) Charlie . . . no one was fishing.
)
) )Are there Universal Spiritual Truths?
)
) I think you may have forgotten that nobody asked you what universal
) spiritual truths you believed in. You announced, out of the blue, that
) there
) were universal spiritual truths. I bet you'll go back and look at the
) post
) 'cus I bet you really think I was taking shots at your spiritual truths
) in
) my nasty way. But the existence of universal spiritual truths was never
) at
) issue, regardless of my personal views about universal spiritual truths
) (and
) you have no idea what my views may be; the only view I have expressed
) here
) is that it is difficult to get people to agree on them). The whole
) exchange
) was comical. I was talking about education being ideology-driven (in
) reply
) to Abd's idea that there might a religious truth that would "in reality"
) result in better education). I was talking about the fact that in a
) pluralistic society, different philosophies (educational or spiritual)
) will
) compete, that we cannot expect one particular one to convince everyone.
) It
) was in that context that you felt the need to inform the list that
) universal
) spiritual truths exist.
)
) You seem to think that someone here baited you to talk about your
) spiritual
) beliefs?
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:00:10 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)Should the *public* schools be teaching that "evolution is
)true?" I don't think so. Evolution is a theory for which the evidence is
)strong. That's what should be taught.
That is not how religious fundamentalists see this matter, however. Some do
not want children even exposed to the concept of evolution, just in case
they might end up believing it, which unfortunately then entails burning in
hell. It seems we probably agree this is a ridiculous mindset, and yet,
let's face it, most religions involve believing things that, to unbelievers
in that particular religion, are, in fact, ridiculous. I know, I know, we're
not supposed to say so, but we all know it's true. Most religions teach
ridiculous things, and most people have noticed this is true at least about
other people's religions.
The *whole point* of the government staying out of it, Abd, is that they
have a right to be as ridiculous as they please. I don't have to like it,
you don't have to like it, we can feel damn sorry for the kids, but they
have a right. That is what religious freedom is.
)But I see nothing that should offend a creationist if a school, to be
)reimbursed part of the cost of educating its students, is required to teach
)what is not even controversial: the majority of biologists consider the
)theory of evolution to be correct.
Then you must have never had a conversation with a creationist. They are not
interested in biologists and their theories, they are worried about spending
eternity in a hot place. Those teaching evolution are working for the devil,
and children are very easily tempted by the devil. Evolution is difficult to
reconcile with the Book of Genesis, and may raise the question in some poor
child's mind that there is no god at the center of such a scheme, no grand
cosmic plan, or that humans are not the pinnacle of God's plan, etc. (Rudolf
Steiner also did not like the notion that we evolved from apes; his notion
of all the animals "united in man" is related to this mindset.) To the
fundamentalist creationism is true and evolution is heresy, and immortal
souls are at stake.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:03:22 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)The government may fund the construction of roads. Such roads may
)facilitate the holding of religious services. Thus it could be claimed that
)the government, by building a road that provides access to a church, the
)state is funding religion. But this would be a false claim.
This is goofy, Abd. Come on. No, roads, and the people who build them,
aren't responsible for what people who drive on them do. Roads don't have
intentions or ideologies, and they certainly don't *promote* ideologies.
Religious schools do. There is no comparison.
)The state is funding *transportation,* and as long as it does this in a way
)that does not create a religious preference, there is no conflict with the
)constitution.
But religious schools do create religious preferences, and not as an
afterthought or incidental effect, but on purpose.
)The courts have, indeed, previously ruled that where a voucher scheme has
)the main outcome of funding religious education, it is unconstitutional.
)I asked, previously, for case citations. Diana is simply repeating herself.
Errrr . . . I posted one last night, 8/17 - did you miss that? The Florida
case? The court ruled using the same arguments I have made here in the past
2 weeks. If you'd like to actually understand where all this stands,
nationwide, read that article, it was a New York Times article and hopefully
still accessible. If not, I will pull the paper copy out of the recycling
bin and type some of it in for you. About a week ago I posted some other
information on religious schools getting funded through vouchers (showing
that the vast majority of private schools benefitting from vouchers are
religious). That post also listed at least one case outcome, if I recall.
)"Main outcome" has two possible meanings. If that outcome was the
)intention, or can be seen to be the intention of the voucher scheme, then,
)indeed, the scheme would be unconstitutional. However, if a scheme has a
)legitimate public purpose, not involving the favoring of a particular
)religion or of religion as a whole, then it might *not* be unconstitutional
)even if it has an outcome favoring one religion over another.
Well, again the courts have ruled differently. They've ruled that the
outcome is indeed what counts.
)Diana cannot "testify" as she suggested. She doesn't understand what
)"testimony" is. Etc etc
It was a joke, Abd.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:32:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Diana Winters
)The *whole point* of the government staying out of it, Abd, is that they
)have a right to be as ridiculous as they please. I don't have to like it,
)you don't have to like it, we can feel damn sorry for the kids, but they
)have a right. That is what religious freedom is.
)
The way this thread started was with the article from Richard Dawkins
stating this point very strongly. I think Walden commented on this before
but I don't think anyone else has. If I might attempt to summarise Dawkins,
he doesn't want governments supporting religious schools in the sense that
Abd is promoting precisely because this very promotion inhibits the
religious freedom of children. I'll try a variant on this argument. I would
be reasonably happy for the something like Abd's voucher system to occur
provided that there was no religious association whatsoever. Anything short
of this is government support for religion, and inhibits the freedom of
children to choose their own beliefs at the appropriate time.
The question is does Abd want religious freedom for his children and for the
children of others. Does he want to give his children a choice to be muslims
or not?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:36:43 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: more on vouchers
It's been a bad week for proponents of privatizing public education, in
general.
http://blog.au.org/vouchers_religious_school_funding/
And here is another excellent summary of related cases and issues.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9003
(http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9003&c=140&Typ
e=s) &c=140&Type=s
I haven't read all of this closely, but I see it has a very satisfying and
clearer rebuttal to many of Abd's arguments than I can make. There are
specifics of cases where the notion that the state is merely "reimbursing"
parents for religious schools has been rejected, as well as the notion that
education is a service comparable to roads or sewers so anyone able to
provide the service should be "reimbursed." The ingenuity and complexity of
many of these so-called "reimbursement" schemes is noted, made me feel they
must have been talking to Abd :-) Also rejected is the notion that
everything is copacetic as long as the parents are making the "choice" or as
long as various secular options remain available, since in private school,
the "choice" is made first by the school, which doesn't have to take you
unlike the public school, and private schools are free to discriminate in
various ways (such as religiously).
I might also note their teachers' qualifications are not as strictly
regulated as public school teachers, which could be good or could be bad, of
course, but it means that the religious school is free to hire someone more
because of his or her religious commitment than teaching abilities. (Waldorf
being a wonderful case in point.) Another reason that state money should not
go to that school.
Finally, I don't think it was this article but something else I found
browsing around, which pointed out that one important reason it is mainly
religious schools that benefit from voucher programs is that vouchers
typically don't cover the costs of other types of private schools. Religious
schools in the US are often very considerably cheaper than other private
schools so the religious school is often the only thing a voucher is really
good for, for families that could not afford private school any other way.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:32:19 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Peter F. wrote:
"The way this thread started was with the article from Richard Dawkins
stating this point very strongly. I think Walden commented on this before
but I don't think anyone else has. If I might attempt to summarise Dawkins,
he doesn't want governments supporting religious schools in the sense that
Abd is promoting precisely because this very promotion inhibits the
religious freedom of children. I'll try a variant on this argument. I would
be reasonably happy for the something like Abd's voucher system to occur
provided that there was no religious association whatsoever. Anything short
of this is government support for religion, and inhibits the freedom of
children to choose their own beliefs at the appropriate time."
I think this speaks to the situation parents find themselves in when they
might see what they want to see in a Waldorf school, as opposed to the
reality of Waldorf education. Parents want choice. Waldorf *seems* to fit
the bill because the movement has a very hard time explaining what it is -
therefore, it becomes many things to as many people. Parents are often
willing to check their brains at the door and walk into the Silk and Bees
Wax Wonderland with their hearts wide open. When the brain catches up,
alarm bells sound and the kaka hits the fan. Speaking from the *I*...
guilty.
I admit to being slightly *out there* these days as I question the intent
behind coercing a child in any educational institution - religious or not.
As this thread is about religious beliefs, however, I will point to more
Richard Dawkins and how I see his thoughts on this subject relating to the
Waldorf methodology (brief excerpt below). The young Waldorf student must
obey the teacher. And from the Walden experience file:
Example #1 - While watching a fascinating documentary on the evolution of
humankind, my own teenage son (a few years removed from Waldorf) asked me,
"what about Atlantis?"
Example #2 - Friend of same son (still in Waldorf) explained to me - when I
questioned him about his close relative's touch healing powers: "she
definitely has healing powers because people pay her good money for it."
- Walden
Richard Dawkins - from
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm
"My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we
survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations.
Theoretically, children might learn from experience not to swim in
crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective
advantage to child brains with the rule of thumb: Believe whatever your
grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents, obey the tribal elders, especially
when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Obey without question.
I have never forgotten a horrifying sermon, preached in my school chapel
when I was little. It was horrifying in retrospect: at the time, my child
brain accepted it as intended by the preacher. He told the story of a squad
of soldiers, drilling beside a railway line. At a critical moment, the drill
sergeant's attention was distracted, and he failed to give the order to
halt. The soldiers were so well schooled to obey orders without question
that they carried on marching, right into the path of an oncoming train.
Now, of course, I don't believe the story now, but I did when I was nine.
The point is that the preacher wished us children to regard as a virtue the
soldiers' slavish and unquestioning obedience to an order, however
preposterous. And, speaking for myself, I think we did regard it as a
virtue. I wondered whether I would have had the courage to do my duty by
marching into the train.
Like ideally drilled soldiers, computers do what they are told. They
slavishly obey whatever instructions are properly delivered in their own
programming language. This is how they do useful things like word processing
and spreadsheet calculations. But, as an inevitable by-product, they are
equally automatic in obeying bad instructions. They have no way of telling
whether an instruction will have a good effect or a bad. They simply obey,
as soldiers are supposed to.
It is their unquestioning obedience that makes computers vulnerable to
infection by viruses and worms. A maliciously designed program that says
"Copy me to every name in any address list that you find on this hard disk"
will simply be obeyed and then obeyed again by the other computers to which
it is sent, in exponential expansion. It is impossible to design a computer
that is usefully obedient and at the same time immune to infection.
If I have done my softening up work well, you will already have completed
the argument about child brains and religion. Natural selection builds child
brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders
tell them. And this very quality automatically makes them vulnerable to
infection by mind viruses. For excellent survival reasons, child brains need
to trust parents and trust elders whom their parents tell them to trust. An
automatic consequence is that the "truster" has no way of distinguishing
good advice from bad. The child cannot tell that "If you swim in the river
you'll be eaten by crocodiles" is good advice but "If you don't sacrifice a
goat at the time of the full moon, the crops will fail" is bad advice. They
both sound the same. Both are advice from a trusted source, and both are
delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands
obedience.
The same goes for propositions about the world, the cosmos, morality, and
human nature. And, of course, when the child grows up and has children of
his or her own, she will naturally pass the whole lot on to her own
children, using the same impressive gravitas of manner."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:08:10 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: Universal Spiritual Truths in Waldorf (was re: free choice of religion)
charlie frey wrote:
)
) The following is what I took to be the bait, from Barnaby:
[snip]
It was a serious question: perhaps you'd like to make a serious attempt
at answering it.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1440
-- Topica Digest --
RE: free choice of religion
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: free choice of religion
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: free choice of religion
By mysplum earthlink.net
By cffrey mindspring.com
Viroqua
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re:
By dan dandugan.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Beliefs vs. truth
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By madpark nildram.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:13:36 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) David Dodds wrote:
) )Hi Peter,
) ) This whole topic opens a whole can of worms!
) )Sure, all Richard Dawkins says is of a good deal of value and sense, but
) )since we are talking of people, sense doesn't always figure.
) ) It seems to me that for all the positives in RD's letter, it preassumes
) )a 'Year Zero' starting point; in other words it makes no allowance for
) )the historical, and therfore cultural/historical aspects of established
) )religions.
)
) I note that Dawkins starts his letter by talking about the dismantling
) the
) system of government by hereditary peerage.
Such a need is, I think, commonly agreed in the UK, But it ought to be
noted too that powers of The House of Lords are limited by the
Parliament Act. At worst (or best) The Lords can only hold up
legislation from The House of Commons for a year. We - and with
Australia's present constitutional state within the Commonwealth that
includes you- still subject to the archaic Act of Settlement which means
neither of us can anticipate a Catholic Sovereign
A not unlikely source of Repulicanism methinks!
) By your argument nothing that has history can be fixed.
I hadn't intended to make an arguement: rather just an observation of a
situation as it obtains at the moment.
)The system of government by hereditary peerage has been fixed.
To an extent.
)Dawkins may well be arguing that state sponsorship of faith schools
)should stop immediately, but of course this is not what might
)necessarily happen. A phasing out of state funds over a decade might
)be more appropriate and allow for necessary planning.
I had hoped that this was what I was trying to get at too. I guess I
failed to make the point. This is indeed the thrust of the Scottish
Executive's initiative.
)
) ) Younger nations- such as the United States had the opportunity to
) )establish some distance from the conflicts, even wars of religion which
) )became inextricably bound up with national aspirations of Europe. I'm
) )using a very broad brush, so with due apologies for errors in minutae,
) )The Reformation only met with real success north of the Alps: percieved
) )wisdom in most of northern Europe was that remittances to the Holy See
) )didnt bring much return,
) )so often religious reformation was the excuse for economic rebelion and
) )consequently national identity.
) ) Holland became Protestant by way of asserting separation from Spain.
) ) Exceptions of course: Ireland's Catholicism was, in some ways, as much
) )"not British" as pro Rome.
) ) Of course it makes sense to put these killing times where they belong,
) )firmly in the past, but its difficult.
)
) I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that it would be good to
) put
) these killing times in the past where they belong, or are you claiming
) that
) these killing times are part of the past and we can now treat them
) historically?
)
Both, so long as the history lessons are borne in mind, otherwise there
is a possibility of "takeover by stealth".
Peter, I can't help wearing two hats: I'm Scottish, so that in Scotland
I'm part of the ethnic majority, but within the greater British purview
I'm part of an ethnic minority. Margaret Thatcher tried to handbag us
into accepting that our being Scottish was an irrelevance, and that we
"didn't get the message". That ring any bells?
MT was firmly bombed out, and her party remains a rump outfit in
Scotland.
The point here is that before we can work out where we are going, it is
necessary to know from where we came.
Other influences which enrich and broaden culture are welcome. Those
which seek to supplant it are not.
In the context of this list, for Margaret Thatcher sustitute
Anthroposophy, and there you have it.
I don't comment very often on this list, but when I do, I tend to use
fairly contemptuous terms for anthroposophy. It's retaliatory. The
learned lesson is that where respect is requested and given in return,
it isn't difficult to reciprocate. Where it is *demanded* with little or
nothing given in return is, at best distasteful. In such a setting,
one's first line of defence is that of the culture of the host, based on
history and the culture evolved therefrom.
) I think there are many reasons to be wary of publicly funding a variety
) of
) what Dawkins calls faith based schools.
Again I agree, but before going along with this premiss, I think we
should very carefully define just what would replace it.
The devil you know I guess.
It is entirely possible to "reasonable" oneself into oblivion.
Pax vobiscum
Davy
) _________________________________________________________________
) Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
) http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:57:47 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
on 7/28/04 10:30 PM, David Dodds at jaquesdm msn.com wrote:
) Most places I know of maintain established religion in education, but
) happily, all due *respect* is allowed for those of a different
) persuasion, to maintain their difference with equality.
Sharon: In South Africa we used to have to pray and sing to the Christian
God/Jesus every morning in public school. I think the British established
this habit. Jehovah Witness kids used to have to stand outside until prayers
were over, then they'd come into assembly. You didn't dare tell anybody you
were a nonbeliever. I don't understand how you can maintain different
persuasions with equality in that setting. This is an ideological imposition
by the state on children (indirectly their families) and should not be the
way a free society conducts itself. I agree with Dawkins. I tried to raise
my daughter with the freedom to choose when she is older. She asked to go to
Sunday school *once* (G) and I drove her there. She also went to a Buddhist
temple with some friends. She has been to many Jewish services, etc., and we
talk about religion quite a lot. I think public schools can offer children
an understanding and neutrality that some strict religious households can't.
I think a strict religious household couple with a strict religious school
can be a death sentence for some children. I would rather go to school with
all kinds of people representing all faiths, undecided belief and
non-belief, than to go into a separate warren of belief offering only one
point of view.
) Certainly The Scottish Executive is striving to persuade all parties to
) surrender this separation but with little support from the general
) public, and there seems to be an increasing demand from our growing
) Islamic community to establish Islamic schools.
Sharon: And if Christianity is being promoted by the state in your
democracy, then Muslims *should* have the right to establish state sponsored
public Islamic schools. But then off those kids will go into their
segregated schools and be exposed to only one ideological worldview. I just
think unity and neutrality is the best alternative we have for schools in
free societies.
I think it's interesting that France and England are trying to make schools
secular while people here in America are attempting the opposite. That tells
me something.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:17:48 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
on 7/28/04 10:43 PM, abd lomaxdesign.com at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
)
) Just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of
) religious schools. Rather, I'm in favor of allowing *all* private
) schools a state reimbursement equal to what the school saves the state
) by educating a child, provided that the private school meets state
) requirements as equitably determined.
Sharon: But we all pay school taxes, even if our kids are grown or we don't
have any kids, so I don't see how private schools are saving the state
money. Keeping an eye on whether a school meets requirements would add a
tremendous cost to tax payers. It would also be unfair for the state to
provide a Christian school in one neighborhood for some families but to deny
a Hindu family in the same neighborhood access to a Hindu school, or not to
offer an atheist parent an atheist alternative for their children in that
area. How would you deal with things like women's equality and Gay rights?
Should the state support schools that teach that God hates gays or that
women are subservient to men? After all that has been done to get this far
in our society, I think segregated faith schools would be a step backwards.
I also think it would be unfair to give vouchers out because there just
aren't enough private schools to go around.
I think public schools need revamping, it would be great if they could even
be reinvented. I think some problems could be addressed by distributing tax
monies more equitably--give poor neighborhoods the same amount as rich
neighborhoods.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:59:34 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject:
Did you all know that there are many people in Waldorf who are
vehemently against Waldorf charter schools?
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Viroqua
Viroqua, Wisconsin is increasingly being inundated with anthroposophists. (From the interaction I’ve had with many of them in the past few years, I believe that a few of them actually know that is what they are. That is, most of those who are locally involved with the local Waldorf schools and with whom I have spoken are unfamiliar with the word “anthroposophy.”)
Just in the past year they have literally taken over Main Street. I have not yet made a count, but I feel certain that the majority of businesses on Main Street are owned by anthrops. MOSA (Midwest Organic Services Association) relocated from a very rural space several years ago to take up residence on Main Street; it is wholly controlled by anthrops. The Viroqua Food Co-op, which is also owned and completely controlled by local anthrops was recently “awarded” city monies to rehabilitate a large building on Main Street into which it will then move.
There was an attempt by one of the high profile anthrops to convince the local school board to allow a small school that was recently closed to become yet another charter school. When he made the presentation to the school board, Terry Noble (who until recently was also the editor in chief of the local newspaper) openly declared that 13 to 14 families per year are moving to Viroqua for purposes of entering their children into one of the local Waldorf schools. (In fact, he referred to them as “Waldorf families.”) This was a salient point in his pitch to allow them to convert the Liberty Pole school into a charter school. The school board voted against the proposal, but it seems certain that it will be revisited.
MOSA is the organic certifying agency for this region. From reading the Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School bulletins and from other sources it is clear that many of those moving to Viroqua find immediate employment either at MOSA or at CROPP (brand name is Organic Valley), which is also another business begun and controlled by anthrops. CROPP also recently received a number of grants to greatly expand its facilities, which no doubt is why many more “Waldorf families” are relocating here.
MOSA in the past has only stealthily supported and/or proselytized re: biodynamics, but it is increasingly doing so, which is particularly problematic because of the power they have. That MOSA has the power conferred upon it by the U.S. government to make an official determination that a business meets certain guidelines – and that translates into the financial bottom line for family businesses, in particular, seeking that certification – should lead to some concern. [Also of concern is that George Siemon, whose wife teaches at one of the local Waldorf schools and is the coordinator of this region’s Rainbow Family events, was appointed to a five year term on the National Organics Standards Board several years ago.] Having managed a certified organic sprout business from 1998 to 2000 I can with no trepidation state that certification is strictly a matter of paperwork and that one had better not ruffle whomever is pushing that paperwork. That doesn’t mean that those seeking
certification must be directly involved with the local Waldorf community, but that they had better toe the anthrop line, e.g. don’t challenge them, don’t blow the whistle on them. The owners of the sprout business I managed spoke disparagingly of the local Waldorf community, even though or perhaps because they had their son enrolled in Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School, but they were quite upfront about 1) their willingness to do whatever was required to be certified organic and 2) their desire to access that community’s wealth, specifically what they referred to as the “financial brotherhood.”
Members of the local school board and the school administration are well aware of the anthrop beliefs and agenda, but since many of the graduates from Pleasant Ridge attend the local public high school and bring in the per student monies, they are certainly unwilling to be part of exposing anthroposophy for what it is, particularly since they share the base belief of aryan supremacy, although they would adamantly deny that, of course, even though their actions clearly exhibit their beliefs.
The local anthrops use the theme that they are creating jobs, which goes a long way in a county that annually see-saws back and forth with a neighboring county for the title of most economically depressed county in Wisconsin. A few of the local non-anthrops do work for CROPP, and frankly it has been from those people that we have learned some of the internal machinations of that corporation, I suspect because there simply have not been enough of their own here to keep the business running. With the annual influx of “Waldorf families” increasing, I’m certain there will be far fewer non-anthrops employed there in the near future. [As an aside, I don’t know of any non-anthrops working at MOSA.]
Then, there is the La Crosse Waldorf community (located 33 miles from Viroqua) and their growth, but I’ll save