return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: More on news Article.
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
RE: Rainbow Gathering (somewhat off-topic)
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
RE: Rainbow Gathering (somewhat off-topic)
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By snell netshel.net
RE: (For Ray) teacher training and eurythmy
By lschelly jackrouse.com
RE: Westfall
By lschelly jackrouse.com
Federal judge will try Waldorf school case
By snell netshel.net
Re: more on naming victims
By steve premofine.com
Luke Schelly post on tuition contracts
By momof2gals mindspring.com
On Rainbow Family again.
By irisspringflower yahoo.com
Re: naming victims
By Gary GoodWinter.com
RE: Westfall
By canndw netzero.net
RE: On Rainbow Family again.
By canndw netzero.net
RE: On Rainbow Family again.
By snell netshel.net
Re: naming victims
By alice javanet.com
Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Rainbow Family. To David, Debra, and all
By irisspringflower yahoo.com
Nothing has changed since 1994!
By irisspringflower yahoo.com
Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
By rbc supranet.com
letter to The Union
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Rainbow Family. To Iris
By firefly tpg.com.au
Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
By Rechomba cs.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:16:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: More on news Article.
) David: I will vouch for the reputation of
) Hartsbrook as a strong,
) well-established Waldorf school in the Northeast.
)
)
) David
So what and according to whom? "Strong" and
"well-established" are adjectives that by themselves
supply no evidence as to what is being done in the
school. Actually, what you write supports Alice's
statements, particularly as concerns the power of
those allied with that school to make other people
feel powerless.
DK
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:26:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Rainbow Gathering (somewhat off-topic)
The Waldorf people I know here are heavily involved in
the the Rainbow Family and New Ageism. Before we
moved to this area and before we had ever heard of WE,
my daughter, friends of ours and I had horrific
problems with the Rainbow Family. I have a close
friend who was close to the inner core of the RF for
many years and knows firsthand the type of people they
are. I know they have no boundaries, particularly
concerning sex and children. Our first serious
confrontations with the Waldorf community here had to
do with an adult male covertly engaging in sexual
abuse of children. Most of his victims are Waldorf
students. The ranks closed rapidly and the Waldorf
students were told by their parents that they could
not socialize with my daughter, who was the only child
to speak about what this man was doing.
The Federal Register has published reports by the U.S.
Forestry Service detailing some of what happens during
the RF gatherings. I can get the cites for those if
anyone is interested. Most of the Waldorf people I
know here go to these gatherings; this past year it
appears that even more of them went to the Montana
gathering.
DK
--- David Cann (canndw netzero.net) wrote:
) Sorry, folks, for the multiple, identical messages.
)
) David
)
) David Cann wrote:
) Iris Springflower has written fairly frequently on
) this list about
) waldorf school families in her area being part of
) the "Rainbow family"
) and attending "Rainbow gatherings". I had heard of
) Rainbow Gatherings,
) but really didn't know much about them. I found
) this article about the
) latest Gathering
)
) http://www.reason.com/0102/fe.sm.take.html
)
) to be informative, showing the Rainbows neither too
) positively nor
) negatively (my opinion). Within the article is the
) Rainbow's web site
) address ("unofficial", of course, since they purport
) to be a leaderless
) group) for those who may be interested.
)
)
____________________________________________________________
) T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
) Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You
) Choose.
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:35:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Rainbow Gathering (somewhat off-topic)
) http://www.reason.com/0102/fe.sm.take.html
)
) to be informative, showing the Rainbows neither too
) positively nor
) negatively (my opinion). Within the article is the
) Rainbow's web site
) address ("unofficial", of course, since they purport
) to be a leaderless
) group) for those who may be interested.
First of all, RF is not off-topic. Does anyone on
this list know of the Waldorf School that was opened
by a RF group. My understanding is that it is located
perhaps in British Columbia, but I cannot be certain
of that. Also, notice how this article is quite clear
that marijuana is openly used, including as a barter
item. This is an illegal drug and those who use it
are committing illegal acts, but the RF holds itself
above the law. This is absolutely the very same
attitude I have found in this Waldorf community and it
is this attitude that allows Waldorfers to believe
they can use public funds for parochial, school
purposes.
DK
)
)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:39:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
Yes I am a lawyer. Who are you to decide who is a
lawyer and who is not? If you want to know more about
my lawyering, you may contact me offlist.
DK
--- Steve Premo (steve premofine.com) wrote:
) On 30 Jan 2001, at 16:37, Lisa Ercolano wrote:
)
) ) In a post explaining her views on the publishing
) of the names of victims of
) ) sexual assault/rape/incest, etc., Deborah Kelly
) says:
) )
) ) ((I have never met a victim of
) ) abuse who wanted her or his name kept a secret and
) I
) ) have worked with and known many victims.))
) )
) ) Lisa here: I find that very interesting, Deborah.
) Can you perhaps tell me a
) ) little about *why* the victims did not want their
) names kept secret? I know
) ) you are a lawyer ...
)
) Deborah is not a lawyer. She said she was a lawyer,
) and then mentioned
) that she was not licensed, which means she's not a
) lawyer. She does help
) people with administrative hearings, which means she
) might be some sort of
) paralegal.
)
) Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
) "There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
) that distinction is not difficult to make." -
) Superman
) http://www.premofine.com
)
)
____________________________________________________________
) T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
) Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You
) Choose.
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:52:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
--- Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
) Lisa here: I find that very interesting, Deborah.
) Can you perhaps tell me a
) little about *why* the victims did not want their
) names kept secret?
Why would they unless they feared retaliation or felt
they were responsible for being assaulted? Otherwise
I don't understand why anyone would be concerned with
what other people, especially bigots, would think
about her or him.
I know
) you are a lawyer and thus have worked with the
) victims of sexual assault,
) etc. in a different manner than have most of us, so
) perhaps you could take a
) moment and give us some insight about that view.
You assert that this policy protects
) the perpetrator. I am
) not sure I understand this statement .... My view --
) and that of most
) journalists and most victims I have spoken with --
) is that victims do not
) want to become victims again by having their names
) dragged through the mud.
How does this policy not protect the perpetrator and
how does it protect the victim? What sort of
community drags a victim's name "through the mud" and
why would anyone have anything to do with such a
community. It sounds like a thoroughly despicable
group of people to me. Is this what is done in
Waldorf schools? Are children threatened with
retaliation if they speak about what is being done to
them?
) (It's sad, but we all know that there are numerous
) folks out there who like
) to blame the *victims* of these crimes, rather than
) admit that such a thing
) could happen to almost anyone.)
Why do you post this in parentheses? Isn't this the
crux of the problem?
) I have known several rape victims and incest
) survivors in my personal
) life, and not a single one would have wanted me or
) anyone else to publish
) her name in an internet post or a newspaper or other
) periodical.
Why? Did everyone they know blame them for being
assaulted and battered? It's okay for people in the
community wherein the assualt occurred to know the
victim's name and bandy it about, but there is
something wrong with strangers with no ties to the
community (and therefore with perhaps a more objective
stance) knowing know the victim's name. This is not
logical.
DK
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:00:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
--- Alice Klinge (alice javanet.com) wrote:
) I want to second that idea. I believe, Deborah,
) that you need to
) explore your response to this. I know it is not
) easy to admit mistakes,
) but I believe that is the only way for us to heal no
) matter how
) well-intentioned we may be.
What do you mean by "heal?" This has become a catch
phrase in the New Age movement and all of the Waldorf
people around here I know describe themselves as
"healers." In fact, many of them make money off of
it.
) I well know what kind of stigma is around sexuality
) and children.
What stigma? Every child I know who has been sexually
or otherwise abused and who has come forward with the
information, has been told to shut up and they do not
respect the adults who are telling them to shut up.
It
) may not matter who is the perpetrator and who is the
) victim. It is
) difficult as humans not to change the way we look at
) people after such a
) thing. It is human nature.
No it is not. You cannot speak for any other human
first of all. Secondly, not every culture shares the
mores and views of the dominant culture.
Thus, we need to protect
) the confidentiality
) of victims, particularly children, no matter what.
) thanks, [Alice]
There never was any confidentiality.
DK
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:24:40 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
)Yes I am a lawyer. Who are you to decide who is a
)lawyer and who is not? If you want to know more about
)my lawyering, you may contact me offlist.
)
What kind of a lawyer are you, Deborah? Are you practicing currently? Do
you work with sexually abused kids?
-ds
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:35:35 -0400
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly jackrouse.com)
Subject: RE: (For Ray) teacher training and eurythmy
From: Rechomba cs.com
)As a builder and woodworker, I enjoyed your post Luke.
)Thanks,
)Ray
Your welcome. I am a woodworker wannabe.
Some day....
Luke
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jan 2001 12:13:56 -0400
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly jackrouse.com)
Subject: RE: Westfall
)From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)At 7:54 PM -0800 1/30/01, David Cann wrote:
)I (David Cann) wrote:
)Dan, am I correct when I guess that what you call a "waldorf child =
custody
)case" is a divorce case where a child's waldorf education is a =
contentious
)issue between the parents?
)
)...and Dan replied:
) Yes, we get calls about these cases often.
)
)David: Could you put a number to that, please? One a week? a month? =
a
)year? More? Fewer? Involving how many different schools? On this =
list,
)we've heard from Newpaul and Christopher Yavelow on this subject in my =
four
)(maybe five) years here, so that's two.
)
)Dan answered
)I get one every couple of months. Never been the same school. No, I
)won't give details.
For another perspective. As someone who has been on our schools =
finance committee for the last six years or so and has had to deal with =
divirce cases and families splitting up, I have seen adults *use* a =
child's school in a custody case for their own purposes. One parent =
enrolls a child in a private school to show that they are "more =
concerned" about the child than the other adult, and (more likely than =
not) want the spouse to pay at least half of the cost. It has happened =
that, once the courts have decided a monthly payment, the child is =
withdrawn. Its all quite sad.
In the past, our schools fairly relaxed tuition policies made us a =
likely target. Several other private schools in the area have had this =
problem too. We learned from our mistakes. We began to recognize tell =
tale signs.
Our tuiton contracts are much more professional and legally binding =
than they used to be. We also have hired more proffessional book =
keepers/business managers to keep the school aware of where we stand with =
parents (financially speaking). Most parents are quite pleased to see =
the school take its financial responsibilties to a more proffessional =
level.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:22:39 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Federal judge will try Waldorf school case
The Union
Western Nevada County
Federal judge will try Waldorf school case
By Kerana M. Todorov - Wed, Jan 31, 2001
A federal judge could decide this spring whether the Twin Ridges Elementary
School District and the Sacramento Unified School District taught religion,
violating the U.S. Constitution.
The non-jury trial will start March 19 in Sacramento, a federal judge ruled
Monday. The trial is expected to last four weeks.
The People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools - or PLANS - filed suit in
1998 in U.S. District Court against Twin Ridges and the Sacramento Unified
School District.
The plaintiffs allege that students at Yuba River Charter School on Bitney
Springs Road and at John Morse School in south Sacramento were taught a
religion called anthroposophy. Anthroposophy was inspired by Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of the first Waldorf school in 1919, they said. The
two schools mentioned in the suit follow Waldorf-inspired teaching methods,
the plaintiffs said.
Yuba River Charter School now has about 240 students in kindergarten
through eighth grade.
"Our goal is to put Waldorf back in the private sector, where it belongs,"
said PLANS President Debra Snell, the parent of a former Yuba River Charter
School student.
PLANS will ask that all the Waldorf-inspired schools sponsored by Twin
Ridges Elementary School District and Sacramento Unified School District be
closed, Snell said.
Michelle Cannon, a Sacramento attorney representing the two districts, said
the schools are simply teaching a method that integrates subjects such as
music, painting and gardening with traditional classes like reading and
mathematics. It is not religion, Cannon said.
"It's just another way to teach kids," she said.
The trial will be in two phases.
The judge will first determine whether the teaching methods constitute a
religion. In a second phase, the judge will rule whether the schools were
actually religious.
****
This is my feedback to the author:
Dear Kerana,
Your article is technically wrong.
The judge will first decide:
*If Anthroposophy is a religion,* NOT "whether the teaching methods
constitute a religion." PLANS says public Waldorf schools *promote*
Anthroposophy, a New Age religion. Waldorf proponents say "Anthroposophy is
not a religion." This is the core of the lawsuit.
If the judge rules that Anthroposophy is a religion, THEN he will decide if
public Waldorf schools are legal. The Waldorf teacher training programs are
Anthroposophical semminaries, with no core academics in the entire teacher
training program. It is all Anthroposophy, all the time. Anthroposophy
*informs* Waldorf curriculum.
To quote Yuba River public school teachers:
"Waldorf schools are the child of Anthroposophy."
Yep, I have that in writing and it has been submitted into evidence.
Best,
Debra
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:25:49 -0800
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
On 31 Jan 2001, at 6:39, Deborah Kelly wrote:
) Who are you to decide who is a lawyer and who is not? If you want to
) know more about my lawyering, you may contact me offlist.
Me? I don't decide who is a lawyer and who is not. That is a function of
the state bar, which administers the bar exam. You take the bar exam, you
pass, you're a lawyer.
I do look forward to hearing from you offlist about your lawyering.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:43:09 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Luke Schelly post on tuition contracts
In a post discussing how some divorcing parents *use* their child as a pawn
between them, and how that sometimes plays out in Waldorf schools, Luke
Schelly says:
(( Our tuiton contracts are much more professional and legally binding than
they used to be.))
Lisa: Luke, could you give a few more details about your school's contract,
please? (If you could tell us the name of the school and where it is, I
would also appreciate it.)
Basically, I am most interested in what your school's contract promises
that the school will provide in exchange for the contractee's money.
Does it spell out, in detail, that the child will be educated in a safe
and nurturing environment, etc? Does it promise that the child will get an
education at all?
Or does it merely state that the child is to be enrolled and that
tuition is to be paid in the amount of $XXXX a year, and then sets out the
circumstances under which that contract can be broken and by whom?
I ask because I truly am interested. In my opinion, the contract offered
(and signed by us, for several years) at our former W. school left much to
be desired. (Of course, as I had never signed a private school contract
before this, I had nothing to compare it to.)
The contract basically said that our child would be enrolled and that we
would pay a certain amount over a certain period of time.
What a different document that one was compared to the contract we
signed this year at our younger girl's private school (non-WS)!
That document lays out, in detail, what the school promises, as well as
what they are asking parents to promise (besides money.) Mentioned are: an
education in a safe and nurturing environment; an atmosphere of academic
rigor and tolerance for others; development of critical thinking skills, and
so in, in that vein. In return, we promised to support our child, monitor
her homework and projects, etc.
* One last thing: does your school offer tuition insurance?
OUr WS did not. Our new school does, as do most other high quality
private schools.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:27:13 -0800 (PST)
From: iris springflower (irisspringflower yahoo.com)
Subject: On Rainbow Family again.
David. I was with the RF for 12 years! I tried to
speak out against child sexual abuse and rape there at
their gatherings. Some people were supportive,
especially young women who were targets of sexual
harrassment at gatherings. BUT I was told outright by
the long ter members of Tthe RF to "Stop talking about
rape and abbuse" and that "it's negative" to talk
openly about these subjects. A few other RF men took
me aside privately and told me SICKENING statements
such as "Incest is natural" and "the little girls like
(sex with adults)it."
Go to the law enforcement agencies who have to deal
every year with thefts, rapes, and other such crimes
in the nearby small towns where the Rainbows gather.
Go to the local hospitals who wil tell you about the
drug overdoses. At the gatherings themselves, many
drug "freak outs" ar dealt with privately and never
come to the attention of authorities. I have seen
victims of date rape at the gatherings who were told
to BE QUIET about the rapes and to not go to outside
authorities about them., (bad press?). The last place
the RF had their national gathering, in Montana, left
many of the local residents picking up the BILL out of
their property taxes for the price of all the social
services, sanitation, etc., that their county had to
spend dealing with the Rainbow Gathering! This
happens every year!
All other groups who hold large events in the National
Forests take RESPONSIBILITY and pay insurance fees and
sign legal permits to show that they will be
responsible for their actions. WHY is The RF "exempt"
from this?
The Rainbow Family will say they bring money into
local area businesses, but they forget to mention the
large amount of shoplifting that is done by many RF
people. Then there was the scene I witessed at my
last RF I went to before I quit. The Rf people set up
a public shower where people get naked and others wash
them off in public. Well, there was a 12 year old
girl in a bathing suit who wanted to take a shower,
but didn't want to strip naked in front of the fifty
plus men, women, and children waiting in line. So she
said no. Well, the guys who were hosing people off
PRESSURED her, taunted her, and in my opinion, made
fun of her to "Take off your bathing suit"! I
WITNESSED this! I doubt this incident and others like
it will get in the newspaper articles about The RF.
The girl was strong enough to not listen to them. She
walked away. No shower.
WHY do you think, David, that those guys wanted so
much for her to strip naked in front of them and the
whole crowd?
I can go on with other incidents that would never get
into the newspapers. Like the developmentally
disabled young man who had staph infection sores all
over his body in the 1986 National Gathering. His
caretakers, a Rainbow couple made him sleep under
their schoolbus mbile home "with the dogs". It was
raining.
Shall I go on? I think it will take a book and I
don't have the time to write it.
I believe, just as with WE, the EX-MEMBERS of any
group would have truths that the groups, whether they
be The RF, We, or the Moonies would rather NOT the
media (who can be shown only the "positive" aspects of
the group) or the general public know about. Things
like covered-up suicide attempts, sexual abuse, and
other incidents. If anyone here is well versed on
mind control techniques, it isn't easy for the victims
within a group to just go to the legal authorities and
report the crimes which happened to them within the
group.
For correct information abbout The RF, contact law
enforcement agencies in the areas where the RF
gathers. THEY will tell you the facts.
Anyway, this is my take on this subject. That's all I
wish to post on it now. Sorry for any typos. I am
trying my best here.
Best Wishes, Iris
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:28:38 -0500
From: "Gary A. Bonhiver" (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
Deborah Kelly wrote:
) You cannot speak for any other human
) first of all.
Oh......I see....but it's OK for YOU to speak for sexual assault victims who you
know (or know of), without their permission?
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31-Jan-2001 19:18:52 GMT
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Westfall
I, too, have seen financial manifestations of divorce through my role
(currently treasurer and, before that, finance chair) in the waldorf
school. We have had noncustodial parents who refuse to pay toward
child's tuition. But I have never had anything even remotely close
(that I am aware of) to what Dan calls a "waldorf custody case", where a
parent is dead-set against his/her child even attending the waldorf
school at all, while the other parent is adamantly FOR it.
David
Luke Schelly:
For another perspective. As someone who has been on our schools finance
committee for the last six years or so and has had to deal with divirce
cases and families splitting up, I have seen adults *use* a child's
school in a custody case for their own purposes. One parent enrolls a
child in a private school to show that they are "more concerned" about
the child than the other adult, and (more likely than not) want the
spouse to pay at least half of the cost. It has happened that, once the
courts have decided a monthly payment, the child is withdrawn. Its all
quite sad.
In the past, our schools fairly relaxed tuition policies made us a
likely target. Several other private schools in the area have had this
problem too. We learned from our mistakes. We began to recognize tell
tale signs.
Our tuiton contracts are much more professional and legally binding than
they used to be. We also have hired more proffessional book
keepers/business managers to keep the school aware of where we stand
with parents (financially speaking). Most parents are quite pleased to
see the school take its financial responsibilties to a more
proffessional level.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31-Jan-2001 19:33:21 GMT
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: On Rainbow Family again.
I did not intend to express support for the Rainbow family, just pass
along an article describing it in some detail, since I didn't know much
about it.
iris springflower wrote:
) David. I was with the RF for 12 years!
(rest snipped)
David: While I have no reason to disbelieve Deborah and Iris about
Rainbow Ramily members being associated with their waldorf school, I
have never heard it mentioned at our local school. The constant
referrals on this list to RF members and waldorf supporters as
synonymous groups is, in my opinion, not generally true. I am sure it's
not true hereabouts.
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:59:06 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: On Rainbow Family again.
)I did not intend to express support for the Rainbow family, just pass
)along an article describing it in some detail, since I didn't know much
)about it.
)
)iris springflower wrote:
)) David. I was with the RF for 12 years!
)(rest snipped)
)
)David: While I have no reason to disbelieve Deborah and Iris about
)Rainbow Ramily members being associated with their waldorf school, I
)have never heard it mentioned at our local school. The constant
)referrals on this list to RF members and waldorf supporters as
)synonymous groups is, in my opinion, not generally true. I am sure it's
)not true hereabouts.
)
)David
[Debra]
The same is true for our area, David. The RF members don't seem to live
around here. Frankly, I hope they never do.
However, the New Agers certainly hang out around our Waldorf school in
heavy doses.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:46:34 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
Deborah Kelly wrote:
)
) --- Alice Klinge (alice javanet.com) wrote:
) ) I want to second that idea. I believe, Deborah,
) ) that you need to
) ) explore your response to this. I know it is not
) ) easy to admit mistakes,
) ) but I believe that is the only way for us to heal no
) ) matter how
) ) well-intentioned we may be.
)
) What do you mean by "heal?" This has become a catch
) phrase in the New Age movement and all of the Waldorf
) people around here I know describe themselves as
) "healers." In fact, many of them make money off of
) it.
[Alice]
\I am new to this kind of "debate" but I will try and clarify my point.
I think that you were wrong about revealing the name of this girl. I
believe that others thought so too. As they expressed this, it seemed
that your responses were defensive in nature. We are talking about a
girl here (isn't that correct?) - one with an unusual name and possibly
a terrible psychic burden to bear. Why would you want to us to know who
she is?
I am talking about healing so that you could release your defense
when you receive feedback about this from others who presumably
generally support you and your ideas...
I am not clear why you are lumping the concept of "healing" with
cynical, mercenarial suspicions..
) ) I well know what kind of stigma is around sexuality
) ) and children.
)
) What stigma? Every child I know who has been sexually
) or otherwise abused and who has come forward with the
) information, has been told to shut up and they do not
) respect the adults who are telling them to shut up.
[Alice responds]
Excuse me, I was referring to what my family has been through. Even
though we haven't done anything wrong, we are shunned by this
community. Their judgement is enough to create social pain and hurt for
us. I did NOT shut up about this, and I have been told in many ways to
shut up. Are you telling me that I cannot express how this experience
has effected my world view? And my view of vicimization?
) It
) ) may not matter who is the perpetrator and who is the
) ) victim. It is
) ) difficult as humans not to change the way we look at
) ) people after such a
) ) thing. It is human nature.
)
) No it is not. You cannot speak for any other human
) first of all. Secondly, not every culture shares the
) mores and views of the dominant culture.
) [Alice responds] I do not wish to debate from an anthropological or cultural perspective. I thought we were hear to state our hard won truths to exchange information about these educational/institutional philosophical phenomena. I do think that I may speak for my children. Then I am curious how you can speak for this girl?
we need to protect
) ) the confidentiality
) ) of victims, particularly children, no matter what.
) ) thanks, [Alice]
)
) There never was any confidentiality.
) [Alice responds]
I still think that not naming victims is an important rule.
Tell the story, support the victims, find the evidence..
But none of us have any right to socially expose a victim WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT.
[Alice]
) DK
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:12:31 +0100
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
Peter Staudenmaier wrote, commenting on:
=
) ) RUDOLF STEINER AN ACTIVE OPPONENT OF ANTI-SEMITISM
) Many of the claims advanced in this apologia are obviously inaccurate; =
to
) chose just one, the notion that Steiner was "a convinced liberal" is
) absurd. Steiner condemned liberalism because it was supposedly incapabl=
e of
) grasping "the cultural mission which is the duty of the Germans in Aust=
ria"
) (Collected Essays on Cultural History, GA 31, p. 112; the press release=
) Sune translated quotes the very same volume twice).
The author of the text has the following comments:
**********************************************************
In an article in Deutschen Wochenschrift 13 July 1888 on 'Papacy and
liberalism' Steiner wrote:
'The barometer of progress in the development of humanity is its view of
freedom, and the practical realization of this view.'
He thereby expressed the basic view that he consequently held until his
death. It also expresses his agreement with the view of Hegel on the
nature of world history as a progress in the consciousness of freedom,
and the end goal of this history in not only the consciousness of but
the reality of spiritual freedom.
In the article, Steiner also expresses his unambiguous support for 'the
liberal principle as the essence of modern culture.' =
He wrote in connection with this:
*****************************************************
'It is our conviction, that the present time is characterized by an
advance [in freedom] that is as important that brought about by the
teachings of Christ: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus." =
Just as then the equal value of all people before God and his kind was
recognized, the conviction has become ever more established during the
last centuries, that our task not could consist in submitting to the
precepts of an external authority, and that everything that we believe
and that gives direction our actions should have its origin solely in
the light of reason in our soul. =
To only hold that for true, to which our own thinking forces us, and
only move in such social and governmental forms that we give to ourself,
that is the great basic principle of our time.'
****************************************************
This is
=AD a plea for Christianity, whose nature according to Steiner consisted
in the overcoming of the principle of race in favour of the principle of
equality of all people before God and his kind,
=AD a recognition of moral autonomy as the highest stage of moral
development, and also
=AD raises the principle of democracy to the same level of meaning and
importance as the Christian revolution.
But Steiner's unconditional support for the principle of liberalism in
culture did not stop him from criticizing pretence liberalism or wrongly
applied liberalism. He for example criticized market liberalism and
Manchester capitalism as a transfer and application of the principle of
liberty to and in an area where it only can result in damages.
His criticism of liberalism is a criticism of those who have betrayed
the spirit of liberalism, being the basic principle of cultural life,
while still thinking of themselves as its true representatives.
) But to my mind the most
) interesting paragraph here is the last: =
) ) The many evidences in Steiner's work of his active opposition against=
) ) the anti-Semitism show that all other statements on issues related to=
) ) Judaism (especially in lectures), must be read in the context of his=
) ) opposition against racism and anti-Semitism. (14) In view of his
) ) expressed, public, permanent and partly polemic dissociations from su=
ch
) ) ideologies contrary interpretations are not possible to uphold.
) =
) This presents a difficult logical problem: how can Steiner's antisemiti=
c
) statements be read in a non-antisemitic context? This problem becomes e=
ven
) more acute when you realize that a number of the statements quoted here=
are
) taken from plainly antisemitic articles and lectures.
The so called logical problem demonstrates the inconsistency in the
argumentation of those who accuse Steiner of anti-Semitism. It arises by
attributing anti-Semitism to something that not is anti-Semitic.
Those who consider Steiner to be anti-Semitic must explain where the
anti-Semitism in such sentences 'The Jews need Europe and Europe needs
the Jews' lies. How can an essay be anti-Semitic, in which Steiner
explicitly defends the existence of the Jews in Europe? I would call
such an essay pro-Semitic. When such sentences are found in an essay,
any reader must ask him- or herself how the author can be labelled as
anti-Semite. One must ask oneself how the two positions; the one that
expresses support for the existence of the Jews in Europe, and the other
that ascertains the ceasing of Jewry as nationality, can be united with
one another.
The solution lies in the concept of assimilation, that Steiner supported
together with the majority of the European Jews. In the discussion in
Germany one used to transcribe the concept of assimilation with the
concept of 'the destruction of Jewry'. Already Theodor Herzl did that in
his 'The Jewish state' in 1896. Steiner's remarks in the essay on
Hamerling expresses liberal Jewish positions. Most Jewish authors
supported Jewish assimilation during the 1880s' and 90s' and rejected a
separate Jewish state of its own. That is something one know, if one has
aquainted oneself somewhat with the history of Jewry during the 19th
century or the history of Zionism.
Laqueurs writes on the time in his 'Geschichte des Zionismus' (The
history of Zionism):
****************************************************
'But the spirit of the time was still basically optimistic, and one
generally believed that the attraction of anti-Semitism would be limited
to the backward parts of society, especially those who had suffered from
the effects of industrialism. The reaction against enlightenment and
liberalism, the new cult of violence and of anti-Humanism were
considered as transitory cultural diseases [...] =
The anti-Semites who had divided into several factions lost much of
their political influence after 1895, even if it continued in smaller
groups, who fought bitterly against one another [...]
There was also no reason why the German and Austrian Jews should
consider their situation as especially troubling. In Russia and Rumania
the situation for the Jews were incomparably worse: Since 1881 Eastern
Europe was haunted by a wave of pogroms. Even in France, where the
number of Jews was smaller than in Germany, their situation was much
more unsafe. =
The French anti-Semitic movement arose already before Marr, St=F6cker and=
D=FChring. It was strongly developed and had greater influence. In fact,
it was a pioneer of the modern anti-Jewish ideology; the German and
russian anti-Semites imported the greater parts of their ideas from
Paris.'
****************************************************
When Raphael Loewenfels in 1893, the foundation year of the Central
Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith, wrote that no educated
Jew was prepared to leave his beloved mother country (literally ('father
country') for a country far away, where his forefathers had lived
inconceivably long ago, he according to Laqueurs expressed 'not the
opinion of one individual', but 'the conviction of very many Jews'.
Anyone who calls Steiner's support of assimilation as 'anti-Semitic'
does two things:
- he slanders the majority of the Jews at the end of the 19th century as
being anti-Semites and
- shows his complete ignorance of Jewish history during the time.
) I'd like to ask Sune
) what he makes of this press release quoting Steiner's sentence "The Jew=
s
) need Europe and Europe needs the Jews" from Steiner's review of Hamerli=
ng's
) book Homunkulus. You indicated that you were familiar with that review;=
I'd
) like to know whether you think this sentence is presented in context in=
the
) piece you've translated for us. I'd also like to know if you agree that=
) Steiner's rejection of "the Jewish way of thinking" in the same review
) refers to "the belief in an abstract monotheism and a ethics of moral
) precepts and duties, deduced from revelation."
To what else should it refer?
************************************************************
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:55:14 -0800 (PST)
From: iris springflower (irisspringflower yahoo.com)
Subject: Rainbow Family. To David, Debra, and all
WOW! David and Debra, I am so GLAD your Waldorf
schools aren't at all touched by The Rainbow Family!
Then, what's happenening here is that the local RF
organizers who live here are networking with the
WEpeople through the food cooperatives and also
through the New Age businesses and social gatherings
and inviting the Waldorf people to their gatherings.
The RF gives it's "Peace, Love, & Healing" message to
the WE and New Age people, who "take the ait" so to
say. I guess some find what they are looking for at
the Rainbow gatherings. Others may find that their
new sleeping bag gets stolen one day and ask around
for it and be told that "We're all Family here. We
share everything, Brother (or Sister). It's only a
material thing you lost."
The RF goes to the Alternative Culture places to
recruit and invite people to their gatherings. The WE
people in this area are Alternative lifestyle/New
Agers mostly and would not deny this.
I understand what you are saying that Anthroposophy /
Waldorf are NOT connected with The Rainbow Family as
the same organation. That's true. The Hare Khrishna
group regularly has a camp at Rainbow Gatherings. So
do the Wiccans and many other groups.
Eclectic would be the correct word for it. Some would
use the word "Multi-cultic".
By the way, I have also met many Alternative Lifestyle
people who have LEFT The RF, without giving up their
lifestyle. They usually got ripped-off or had some
other bad experience at Rainbow Gatherings and were
QUITE ANGRY with The RF. One WE guy here who is
involed in the local Alternative culture here let a
Rainbow guy stay at his home and the RF guy ran up
thousands in long distance calls then left his host to
pay for it! Happens all the time! Now this local guy
will warn people about The Rf.
A friend of mine let a Rf couple who had a little girl
stay at her house out of compassion for their little
girl. They CHOSE to travel with the girl (rootless).
ANyway, my friend noticed them coming back with STOLEN
property from local businesses and even bathing suits
from the Viroqua pool. Plus videos and books from
local libraries that the couple didn't plan to return.
Electronics too. So she confronted them about it.
These "peaceful"Rainbow people BEAT her up in front of
their daughter! They hurt her very badly. There is a
warrent out for their arrest if they ever return to
this state and they ARE long-time Rf members.
I am not saying "All Rainbow people are bad". Hey, I
was a member of the group myself for 12 years and back
then, I was one of The RF's strongest defenders! I
was being hurt by people during that time and watching
others getting hurt, but I liken it to an abused wife
who still stays with her abusive husband because of
her fear or losing the "good" parts of the
relationship, and the fear of being alone. It took a
LOT for me to leave The RF. You see, that 12 year old
girl I posted about earlier is now almost 19. She is
my DAUGHTER! I watched as those RF men tried to make
her take off her bathing suit in front of fifty plus
people! I walked away from that scene with her. She
and I left that gathering together! NEVER to return to
the RF! My (now 24 year old) son left The RF too. I
won't tell you what some of them tried to do to him
after he refused to take LSD! We DON'T take illegal
drugs! Some of them call me a "traitor" now and I do
ask that you please keep my name WITHIN this list
concerning all I am disclosing. Why did I take my
kidas there in the first place? Easy, the POSITIVE
newspaper articles and The RF's own literature says
that The RF LOVES CHILDREN AND PUTS CHILDREN FIRST.
They invite famillies with children, ESPECIALLY, to
join. Teenagers are very welcome also. SO you read
one of the glowing newspaper articles about The RF
that has pictures of happy children in the woods and
you are led to believe that it's a healthy,
back-to-nature, and loving place for kids. ANYONE can
believe this! I used to place pro-RF flyers on the
food coops and the alternative bookstores and the
natural foods restaurants bulletin boards. Those are
the places to find the people who would be more likely
to attend Rainbow Gatherings. The Waldorf schools are
a great target population for this! People looking
for alternatives...people critical of the Established
Order...Lots of families with CHILDREN and young teens
means a good family image.
I am VERY SORRY now that I did that, but back then,
like the abused wife who DEFENDS her abusive husband,
no matter how much he hurts her, I did that. I REALLY
BELIEVED I was helping to make the world a better
place! I didn't believe anyone was going to be hurt.
I TRUSTED The RF COMPLETELY! The Rf was "My
Family". It brings CHILLS up my spine to think of it
now. I have a LOT of REGRETS.
My kids and I have a close, wonderful relationship
now. They both call me a "good Mom".
Best Wishes, Iris (please don't flame me for
disclosing this. Of course some RF members may come
hurt me in some way or do WORSE to me for disclosing
this. That's why I prefer this to stay on this list.)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:17:22 -0800 (PST)
From: iris springflower (irisspringflower yahoo.com)
Subject: Nothing has changed since 1994!
Hi. The last post I worte here got me "inspired" to
go search the Web and I found The RF's current message
board. So I read some of their posts (past few days).
One big thread is about how to deal with the theft
and violence at their gatherings. Of course, not all
of their members are theives, sexual offenders, etc.
There are also people who really believe The Rf IS
about peace, love, and healing.
Anyway, a guy posted there that he has attended the
Rainbow Gatherings of the past four years and he has
seen an INCREASE in theft and violence each year that
he attends. He asked the others what do do to stop
this. He sounded genuinely concerned about the thefts
and growing amount of violence at the RF gatherings.
They said, "Talk about it in Council (within the
group):, "Plan better gatherings", "Camp with your
friends in communities. DON'T camp by yourself." NOT
one person mentioned going to the outside law
enforcement authorities to REPORT the violence and
theft. It hasn't changed since I left the group in
1994! Same old garbage. Well, at least I just found
out that the amount of theft and violence has grown
since I left. Not one of the RF members on their
message board DENIED the fact of the thefts and
violence. They all agreed it happens at their
gatherings. Oh, one person posted a long post BLAMING
THE MAINSTREAM SOCIETY for the theives and violent
perpetrators at their gatherings. Another guy blamed
the FBI!
I don't think the local WE people here will stop
attending RF gatherings because of this, huh? After
all, they all camp together when they attend Rainbow
gatherings. I SECOND Deborah Kelly's posts on the RF
topic. Now I need to take a REST from it. This is
bringing up painful memories.
Best Wishes, Iris
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:33:25 -0600
From: "Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative" (rbc supranet.com)
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
looks like I'll have to hold off on that post about Hegel....
I was hoping Sune would tell us his own thoughts on the questions I posed
to him, but I guess I'll have to make do with his anonymous stand-in.
That's a shame; Sune is considerably brighter than this person. I must
admit at the outset that I have little patience for people, especially
those who are not on this list themselves and thus remain unaccountable,
who deliberately misrepresent texts that are available only in German. It
is of little use to argue back and forth about writings that most of you
don't have access to, but I don't know what else to do in a case like this.
That said, my replies are below.
) ) Many of the claims advanced in this apologia are obviously inaccurate;
)) to chose just one, the notion that Steiner was "a convinced liberal" is
) ) absurd. Steiner condemned liberalism because it was supposedly
)) incapable of grasping "the cultural mission which is the duty of the
)) Germans in Austria" (Collected Essays on Cultural History, GA 31,
)) p. 112; the press release Sune translated quotes the very same volume
)) twice).
)
)
) The author of the text has the following comments:
)
) **********************************************************
)
) In an article in Deutschen Wochenschrift 13 July 1888 on 'Papacy and
) liberalism' Steiner wrote:
)
) 'The barometer of progress in the development of humanity is its view of
) freedom, and the practical realization of this view.'
This sentence has nothing to do with liberalism. The article is a rejection
of both catholicism and liberalism, not a championing of the one over the
other. Throughout the article Steiner refers disparagingly to
"pseudo-liberalism" and has nothing good to say about it. I have no idea
how our anonymous author got the idea that this article is a defense of
liberalism.
) He thereby expressed the basic view that he consequently held until his
) death. It also expresses his agreement with the view of Hegel on the
) nature of world history as a progress in the consciousness of freedom,
) and the end goal of this history in not only the consciousness of but
) the reality of spiritual freedom.
Perhaps our anonymous author also thinks Hegel was a liberal.....
) In the article, Steiner also expresses his unambiguous support for 'the
) liberal principle as the essence of modern culture.'
No, he doesn't. The full sentence reads: "Nor can it be denied that the
liberal principle has been correctly identified [in Pope Leo's encyclical]
as the essence of modern culture." Steiner does not express any kind of
support, ambiguous, unambiguous, or otherwise, for "the liberal principle"
here, he merely notes that in his opinion the pope has diagnosed
contemporary European culture accurately. Perhaps our anonymous author
could share with the rest of us the secret decoder ring he used while
reading this article; he surely has come up with a creative interpretation
of Steiner's text.
) He wrote in connection with this:
)
) *****************************************************
)
) 'It is our conviction, that the present time is characterized by an
) advance [in freedom] that is as important that brought about by the
) teachings of Christ: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
) bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
) Christ Jesus."
)
) Just as then the equal value of all people before God and his kind was
) recognized, the conviction has become ever more established during the
) last centuries, that our task not could consist in submitting to the
) precepts of an external authority, and that everything that we believe
) and that gives direction our actions should have its origin solely in
) the light of reason in our soul.
)
) To only hold that for true, to which our own thinking forces us, and
) only move in such social and governmental forms that we give to ourself,
) that is the great basic principle of our time.'
Try as I might, I cannot find any reference to liberalism anywhere in this
passage. Did anyone else spot one?
) This is
)
) ‚ a plea for Christianity, whose nature according to Steiner consisted
) in the overcoming of the principle of race in favour of the principle of
) equality of all people before God and his kind,
)
) ‚ a recognition of moral autonomy as the highest stage of moral
) development, and also
)
) ‚ raises the principle of democracy to the same level of meaning and
) importance as the Christian revolution.
Perhaps my original comment, which supposedly occasioned this anonymous
treatise, wasn't sufficiently clear. I said that it is absurd to describe
Steiner as "a convinced liberal". I said nothing about Steiner's views on
christianity, moral autonomy, or democracy (although now that these issues
have been raised, I am happy to say that the above description of Steiner's
views is a caricature). Liberalism has a very specific meaning in late 19th
century Austrian culture, and that meaning is unrelated to questions of
christianity etc. This ought to be obvious from the fact that liberals of
the era included christians and non-christians, supporters and opponents of
moral autonomy theories, and people with widely divergent conceptions of
democracy. Thus I fail to see what any of this has to do with my comment.
) But Steiner's unconditional support for the principle of liberalism in
) culture did not stop him from criticizing pretence liberalism or wrongly
) applied liberalism.
"Did not stop him"? All he does in the cited article is criticize actually
existing liberalism (and make fun of the pope) for five straight pages.
Steiner does make exactly one oblique reference to "true liberalism" in
this article, but that reference is quite puzzling. It seems to be a
positive reference, suggesting that Steiner approved of true liberalism,
but the same sentence goes on to equate this "true liberalism" with a
"truly state-socialist" society, leaving me, at least, rather confused. I
await our anonymous author's brilliant analysis of Steiner's theory of
truly liberal state socialism.
) He for example criticized market liberalism and
) Manchester capitalism as a transfer and application of the principle of
) liberty to and in an area where it only can result in damages.
)
) His criticism of liberalism is a criticism of those who have betrayed
) the spirit of liberalism, being the basic principle of cultural life,
) while still thinking of themselves as its true representatives.
I assume that this is a backhanded admission that Steiner did indeed
denounce actual liberals and liberalism at every opportunity. There must be
over two dozen references to liberalism in the volume that includes "Papacy
and Liberalism" (volume 31 of the collected works, the same one I excerpted
a few days ago), every one of them negative. Our anonymous author seems to
be suggesting that, while Steiner unequivocally condemned what everyone
else called liberalism, he somehow had an alternative vision of liberalism
in the back of his mind. Aside from the fact that this hypothesis is made
up out of thin air, it wouldn't really reflect very well on Steiner even if
it were true. It would make as much sense for me to declare myself the
defender of "true anthroposophy" while spending all my time criticizing
everyone else who call themselves anthroposophists.
) ) But to my mind the most
) ) interesting paragraph here is the last:
) ) ) The many evidences in Steiner's work of his active opposition against
) ) ) the anti-Semitism show that all other statements on issues related to
) ) ) Judaism (especially in lectures), must be read in the context of his
) ) ) opposition against racism and anti-Semitism. (14) In view of his
) ) ) expressed, public, permanent and partly polemic dissociations from
) ) ) such ideologies contrary interpretations are not possible to uphold.
) )
) ) This presents a difficult logical problem: how can Steiner's
) ) antisemitic statements be read in a non-antisemitic context? This
) ) problem becomes even more acute when you realize that a number
) ) of the statements quoted here are
) ) taken from plainly antisemitic articles and lectures.
)
) The so called logical problem demonstrates the inconsistency in the
) argumentation of those who accuse Steiner of anti-Semitism. It arises by
) attributing anti-Semitism to something that not is anti-Semitic.
Well, gosh, yes, that certainly would be a foolish error. Let's see if I
made this error:
) Those who consider Steiner to be anti-Semitic must explain where the
) anti-Semitism in such sentences 'The Jews need Europe and Europe needs
) the Jews' lies.
I didn't say the above sentence is antisemitic in itself, I said it is
taken from an antisemitic article. The article in question is Steiner's
review of a book by Robert Hamerling. The quoted sentence is part of
Steiner's paraphrase of Hamerling's narrative (which might best be
described for now as a spoof of Zionism before Zionism had even been
created), in which the Jews who had left Europe return after crucifying
their former leader. There are two possible ways to understand Steiner's
paraphrase of Hamerling: either he agrees with Hamerling's views or he
rejects them. Our anonymous author obviously believes that Steiner endorsed
Hamerling's view that the Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews. And I
agree; Steiner's review of Hamerling is 100% positive, indeed adulatory. He
clearly endorses the book he is reviewing. And that's where the problem
begins. Steiner's very next sentence after the one quoted above explains
that Jews are "completely incapable of running their own country", which is
why they "need Europe". And why does Europe need the Jews? Because, as
Hamerling's book helpfully explains, without Jews the stock markets had to
close, the newspapers had no reporters, and there weren't enough doctors
(although art and poetry had blossomed in the absence of the Jewish critics
who had previously suffocated German culture). These are just some of the
views that Steiner's text endorses; Hamerling's book also says that the
"Jewish essence" is materialistic, artificial, and not really human; that
the Jews want to found a Jewish state which will "eventually cover the
whole world"; and that Jews are rootless, parasitic moneylenders with no
culture of their own.
) How can an essay be anti-Semitic, in which Steiner
) explicitly defends the existence of the Jews in Europe? I would call
) such an essay pro-Semitic.
It is difficult to understand how a glowing review of an antisemitic book
can count as "pro-Semitic". But perhaps our anonymous author has never
bothered to read Hamerling's book (though that wouldn't really explain
much, since Steiner's review gives a detailed and accurate account of its
vile contents). But even if we excised all of the parts of Steiner's essay
that deal directly with Hamerling's text, we'd still be left with the
following: Steiner places antisemites and Jews on the same moral level (p.
148); he ridicules "oversensitive Jews" who have failed to appreciate
Hamerling's literary genius (ibid.); and he ends the review with a
repugnant five-page attack on unnamed Jewish critics of Hamerling which
contrasts the latter's "productive spiritual work" with his critics'
spiritual infertility, one of the most well-worn tropes of 19th century
German antisemitism. Steiner goes on to flatly disqualify Jewish critics
from writing about Hamerling's work because they are "necessarily
prejudiced" and incapable of "an objective evaluation of the book" (p.
153). This is what our anonymous author calls a pro-Semitic essay.
) When such sentences are found in an essay,
) any reader must ask him- or herself how the author can be labelled as
) anti-Semite.
According to the logic invoked here, the most infamous antisemitic
politician of Steiner's time, Karl Lueger, could not be labelled an
antisemite. Lueger famously declared in 1886: "As God is my witness, I
recognize no differences of faith; Christians and Jews are the same to me."
He went on to become mayor of Vienna on a rabidly antisemitic platform, and
was one of Hitler's heroes. In fairness to Lueger, his antisemitism was
largely tactical, whereas Steiner held deep convictions about the
relationship between Jews and Jewishness and his beloved German culture.
) One must ask oneself how the two positions; the one that
) expresses support for the existence of the Jews in Europe, and the other
) that ascertains the ceasing of Jewry as nationality, can be united with
) one another.
)
) The solution lies in the concept of assimilation, that Steiner supported
) together with the majority of the European Jews.
I'm not so fond of debates where each participant accuses the other of
total ignorance, so I don't really know what to say in response to the
claim that "the majority of European Jews" supported assimilation in 1888,
except that it is at odds with the entirety of existing scholarship on
European Jewry.
) In the discussion in
) Germany one used to transcribe the concept of assimilation with the
) concept of 'the destruction of Jewry'. Already Theodor Herzl did that in
) his 'The Jewish state' in 1896. Steiner's remarks in the essay on
) Hamerling expresses liberal Jewish positions.
Uh, no. Steiner's essay on Hamerling attacks one prominent liberal Jew in
particular, Daniel Spitzer, without naming him (though he made it quite
clear to his readers exactly who he meant), and explicitly rejects *all*
specifically "Jewish positions", liberal or otherwise.
) Most Jewish authors
) supported Jewish assimilation during the 1880s' and 90s' and rejected a
) separate Jewish state of its own. That is something one know, if one has
) aquainted oneself somewhat with the history of Jewry during the 19th
) century or the history of Zionism.
That would probably be the case if one acquainted oneself with this history
by relying entirely on antisemitic tracts, many of which did indeed argue
that the only choices were assimilation and Zionism. Our anonymous author
apparently cannot conceive of the possibility of a thriving Jewish culture
within and alongside gentile cultures. In any case, what Steiner advocated
was not assimilation in the standard sociological sense, but rather the
Jews' "complete disappearance into the German spirit", in the words of his
buddy Jacobowski. Steiner fervently wished "that Jewry as a people would
simply cease to exist" (Steiner, Geschichte der Menschheit, Dornach 1968,
p. 189). He wanted those Jews he considered culturally 'eligible', so to
speak, to become Germans pure and simple with no trace of Jewishness, and
he wanted all other Jews to just go away.
) Laqueurs writes on the time in his 'Geschichte des Zionismus' (The
) history of Zionism):
)
) ****************************************************
)
) 'But the spirit of the time was still basically optimistic, and one
) generally believed that the attraction of anti-Semitism would be limited
) to the backward parts of society, especially those who had suffered from
) the effects of industrialism. The reaction against enlightenment and
) liberalism, the new cult of violence and of anti-Humanism were
) considered as transitory cultural diseases [...]
)
) The anti-Semites who had divided into several factions lost much of
) their political influence after 1895, even if it continued in smaller
) groups, who fought bitterly against one another [...]
)
) There was also no reason why the German and Austrian Jews should
) consider their situation as especially troubling. In Russia and Rumania
) the situation for the Jews were incomparably worse: Since 1881 Eastern
) Europe was haunted by a wave of pogroms. Even in France, where the
) number of Jews was smaller than in Germany, their situation was much
) more unsafe.
)
) The French anti-Semitic movement arose already before Marr, St–cker and
) D¸hring. It was strongly developed and had greater influence. In fact,
) it was a pioneer of the modern anti-Jewish ideology; the German and
) russian anti-Semites imported the greater parts of their ideas from
) Paris.'
Once again, I fail to find anything in these passages to support the point
our anonymous author is trying to make. Laqueur says nothing here to back
up the claim that "the majority of the European Jews" supported
assimilation, much less that the only two alternatives available at the
time were assimilation or Zionism. Laqueur's book, one of the standard
histories of Zionism, actually goes to some lengths to describe the
incredible ideological variety among European Jews on the question of their
relationship to gentile society. Our anonymous author seems to apply his
creative method of interpretation to all texts, not just Steiner's.
) ****************************************************
)
) When Raphael Loewenfels in 1893, the foundation year of the Central
) Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith, wrote that no educated
) Jew was prepared to leave his beloved mother country (literally ('father
) country') for a country far away, where his forefathers had lived
) inconceivably long ago, he according to Laqueurs expressed 'not the
) opinion of one individual', but 'the conviction of very many Jews'.
Yes, the Zentralverein did indeed promote staying in Germany. But staying
in Germany *as Jews* is radically different from "complete
disappearance into the German spirit". Also, the suggestion that the
Zentralverein represented a majority of Jews, even in Germany, is very
wide of the mark; it had next to no support among 'Ostjuden' (Jews from
Eastern Europe living in Germany), and even among 'Westjuden' it struggled
to maintain its profile.
) Anyone who calls Steiner's support of assimilation as 'anti-Semitic'
) does two things:
)
) - he slanders the majority of the Jews at the end of the 19th century as
) being anti-Semites and
)
) - shows his complete ignorance of Jewish history during the time.
I think I'll have to leave it up to readers of this exchange to decide
which one of us is ignorant of the history of German Jewry. As for slander,
I take it our anonymous author means that I have slandered
pro-assimilationist Jews. While I don't think that my skeptical stance
toward assimilationist ideology counts as slander (it has, after all, been
gruesomely confirmed by Germany's twentieth century history), that stance
has relatively little to do with my analysis of Steiner's antisemitism. As
I have tried to explain, Steiner did not support assimilation in the sense
that most pro-assimilationist German Jews understood that term. Rather,
under the influence of Jacobowski, Steiner for a brief period promoted a
sort of super-patriotic overreaction to antisemitism whereby German Jews
would prove themselves more German than their detractors. I think that this
conclusion is unavoidable for anyone who has had an opportunity to read the
half-dozen articles on antisemitism that Steiner wrote in 1901 immediately
after Jacobowski's death. If I have time this weekend I will try to pull
together a summary/analysis of those pieces.
) ) I'd like to ask Sune
) ) what he makes of this press release quoting Steiner's sentence "The
) ) Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews" from Steiner's review
) ) of Hamerling's book Homunkulus. You indicated that you were familiar
) ) with that review; I'd like to know whether you think this sentence is
) ) presented in context in the piece you've translated for us. I'd also
) ) like to know if you agree that Steiner's rejection of "the Jewish way
) ) of thinking" in the same review refers to "the belief in an abstract
) ) monotheism and a ethics of moral precepts and duties, deduced from
) ) revelation."
)
) To what else should it refer?
There is no mention of monotheism or of revelation-based morality in
Steiner's review of Hamerling or in Hamerling's book itself. Monotheism and
revelation-based morality are, on the other hand, distinguishing
characteristics of Judaism as a religion. That Steiner did *not* have
Judaism as a religion in mind is obvious from the full passage: "Jewry as
such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within
the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a
mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean
the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry,
the Jewish way of thinking." (GA 32, p. 152) This is a crystal clear
rejection of the right to existence of the *Jewish people*; it quite
explicitly does not refer to "the Jewish religion only". What Hamerling,
and by extension Steiner, meant by "the Jewish way of thinking" is obvious
from Hamerling's book, which is in large part built around the proposition
that "Jewish sensibility and Jewish essence" are "akin to homunculism",
Hamerling's term for all that is rotten in modern culture -- materialism,
greed, power-seeking, artificiality, spiritual barenness. Steiner's
celebratory review of Hamerling endorses this view of Jewishness, and
recommends it to his readers as "objective". Sune had indicated he was
familiar with this review, and Sune's anonymous partner has been quoting
from it as a model "pro-Semitic text". This is the sort of thing that
passes for "opposition to antisemitism" among anthroposophists. It would
have been better if contemporary anthros had continued to ignore Steiner's
hostility to Jews instead of trying to whitewash it.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:04:07 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: letter to The Union
Dear Editor,
Your article about our lawsuit got several important facts wrong.
We do allege that the schools teach religion, but that is not the
only thing they do that violates the constitution. For example, the
teacher training at Anthroposophical seminaries is also an
impermissable entanglement with religion.
Now that the judge has split the trial, the first phase beginning
March 19, determining whether Anthroposophy is a religion for
Establishment Clause purposes, is estimated to last about one week.
This phase has nothing to do with the schools.
Should the judge find that Anthroposophy is a religion, then in the
second phase of the trial it will be decided whether the school
districts' activities (including teacher training, teaching methods,
classroom and extracurricular activities) include Anthroposophy or
are entangled with Anthroposophy.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
290 Napoleon St. #E
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:41:00 +1100
From: "firefly mail" (firefly tpg.com.au)
Subject: Re: Rainbow Family. To Iris
Dear Iris,
My heart goes out to you for the obvious pain you have experienced with
these groups. I find it all pretty remarkable and am quite relieved that the
Steiner school my son attends here in Sydney, Australia is able to embrace
and accommodate children from all backgrounds without forcing it's
philosophies down our throats. Naturally many of the kids come from
'alternative' families but most I have met seem to have a good grasp on
reality & are hardworking individuals.
My son's school reflects the cultural diversity of our country and racism is
not an issue as far as I can see. I think his school is a progressive one
and although I find some of the practices (eurythmy) odd for the most part
is is providing quality education. Academic kids are encouraged and the
results of the HSC (final year of high school exams) in recent years would
indicate they are successfully combing 'waldorf & mainstream'. Kids have
achieved 99% and they have gone right through from Kindergarten. Just out of
interest all the kids wear uniform until Year 11 & 12 when it is optional.
Another option is for less academic but obviously talented children is to
work on a major project in their final year. These projects are evaluated by
senior academics from universities & colleges and if successful the students
are offered a place in a course of their choice.
I was quite concerned with the Steiner system, because I really didn't know
much about it until I joined this list. I sent my son along because I liked
the school environment (11 hectares of virgin bushland and only 15 minutes
from the CBD) and I was impressed by the dedication of the teachers &
parents. Of course there are some odd bods & beansprout jargon around but
for the most part the high school is a stimulating & interesting learning
environment.
I have met a lot of my son's school friends over the past 6 months and am
pleased to see that they are articulate & well balanced kids. There have
been unique challenges for the teachers getting used to kids from mainstream
schools but they seem to have put their heart & soul into it. Apart from the
school curriculum the kids participate in a wide variety of life skills as
well as fun stuff like abseiling, windsurfing & regular sports.
I wish you well,
regards Deb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:03:21 EST
From: Rechomba cs.com
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
In a message dated 1/31/01 6:14:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Sune.Nordwall home.se writes:
) n an article in Deutschen Wochenschrift 13 July 1888 on 'Papacy and
) liberalism' Steiner wrote:
)
) 'The barometer of progress in the development of humanity is its view of
) freedom, and the practical realization of this view.'
Sune:
) He thereby expressed the basic view that he consequently held until his
) death. It also expresses his agreement with the view of Hegel on the
) nature of world history as a progress in the consciousness of freedom,
) and the end goal of this history in not only the consciousness of but
) the reality of spiritual freedom.
)
Interesting. Lets define Hegel's unusual concept of "freedom". We must first
present his metaphysics. Although Hegel is perhaps the most difficult
philosopher to understand, I'll give it my best shot (granted, in a
simplified nutshell). Bear with me Sune....
Hegel held that the only reality is the whole, or as he puts it: the
"Absolute". It is not that the multiplicity of things (matter) are illusory;
rather things are greater or lesser real depending on how they are perceived
as elements of the whole.The perception of duality and sepateness are the
illusions of irrational thought.
Reason, accd to Hegel, is the logical activity of concious realization
that the whole is real. He devised an interesting form of logic called the
dialectic consisting of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. For example: the
statement "Reality is Life" is the thesis. Life, however, implies death. One
would then say that "Reality is death" (antithesis). Considering that all
that exists is the whole, this won't do either, so one says that "Reality is
life and death". An apparent synthesis, but this statement implies the life
and death of something. One then says "Reality is the life and death of
everything". Still this implies time which, in turn, means a beginning, a
becoming and an end. Then we are back to sepateness and duality...ad
infinitum.
The whole idea, so to speak, is that through this form of logic, a
statement which qualifies the whole is by it's very nature contradictory. One
must rationally expand the statement to include greater numbers of qualifying
statements regarding reality which, ultimately, leads to the synthesis which
Hegel called the "Absolute Idea".
The Absolute Idea or "Spirit" is similar to the intellectual god of
Aristotle in that it is Thought Thinking Thought or the Idea contemplating
itself (what else is there since their is nothing other than the unity/whole
of all things?).
For some unknown reason known only by Hegel (and Steiner!), he applied
this dialectic process to the evolution of Spirit. Spirit incarnates to
become Pure Spirit again. Why is _the_question (as the saying goes: The
universe is in the process of learning Hegel). For Hegel, Spirit (the
Absolute Whole) "separates itself" into opposites of Spirit and matter. The
evolution of Spirit in this physical plane from an imperfect (incarnate) to
perfect state happens in the east to west development of
civilizations/nations of human history beginning with China then the
Greco-Roman, Germany (being German himself, he thought the germans were _the_
spiritually enlightened) and finally America. Every era, or "epoch", of
civilization served to carry the spiritual torch at it's particular stage in
the dialectic.
Here we come to "freedom". Accd to Hegel, the Spirit is the rational Will
that guides human history for the purpose of it's own self-realization as
absolute truth.The individual who, through dialectical logic, "knows" both
the reality of the whole and the process of the self-determination of spirit
becomes "free" subjectively (the object being the Absolute).It is the unity
of the Universal and subjective Will that is the spiritual reality of
humanity.
Keep in mind that reality is the whole and not the multiplicity of it's
parts. Just as an organ is a part of the body (organism), so is the
individual a part of the state. Hegel's view of the state is the "Divine
Idea" manifest on earth in the form of human will. It is the rational,
Universal Will which realizes itself as object, by humans, freely.Hence, the
only spirituality humanity possesses is through the state. We participate in
the spiritual whole as "subject" and "object" in the state which is the
embodiment of the Absolute. Accd to Hegel, the individual is insignificant
outside the State just as an organ is separate from the body. As the purpose
of the organ is to serve the body (the whole), so is the individual to serve
the state.
The liberal concept of the state (Locke) in which it provides for and
protects the endeavors of individuals is dismissed by Hegel. He asserts that
the individual exists, metaphysically, for the state. His concept of
individual freedom amounts to the priviledge/right to obey the Law.
It is not surprising that Hegel advocated monarchy as a spiritual form of
government. Or that he held as heroes the likes of Ceasar and Napoleon.
If Steiner was a big fan of Hegel's concept of "spiritual freedom", then I
must rethink Plato's philosopher king.
Ray
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 146
-- Topica Digest --
RE: More on news Article.
By canndw netzero.net
Re: More on news Article.
By alice javanet.com
Re: naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
RE: Westfall
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By steve premofine.com
RE: Luke Schelly post on tuition contracts
By canndw netzero.net
Re: more on naming victims
By snell netshel.net
Re: naming victims
By alice javanet.com
contracts/was Luke Schelly's post on contracts
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: naming victims
By winters_diana hotmail.com
The unfounded allegations on 'Hess' adherence to anthroposophy'
By hardorp gmx.net
Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
By asf peakpeak.com
tolerance for abuse at Waldorf?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1-Feb-2001 12:50:45 GMT
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: More on news Article.
--------------------------------------
David: I will vouch for the reputation of Hartsbrook as a strong,
well-established Waldorf school in the Northeast.
Deborah Kelly: So what and according to whom? "Strong" and
"well-established" are adjectives that by themselves supply no evidence
as to what is being done in the school. Actually, what you write
supports Alice's statements, particularly as concerns the power of those
allied with that school to make other people feel powerless.
---------------------------------------
I used "strong" to describe a full-sized (K-8), fully-enrolled (grades
classes of twenty or more in general), full curriculum (all usual
waldorf school subjects taught), financially stable school. Purely my
defintion, although it's consistent with how I've heard other waldorf
folks use the term.
I used "well-established" to mean that this "strength" (see above) has
been true for more than just a few years.
NB: under these definitions, my school would be considered neither
"strong" nor "well-established". But I think it's a good school, and I
think that we could, in time, become a strong, well-established school
ourselves, while remaining a good school.
Agreed that this description does not predict what occurs in the school
on a day-to-day basis.
I do not know enough about Alice's situation (or her school) to either
support or refute it, and I did not offer the above email in an attempt
to do either.
However, Hartsbrook was one of the first waldorf schools I learned about
that had a history of success (or "strength") without being adjacent to
a major city, and I've often used it as a mental model of "success" for
my school. Many key players in Waldorf on the US East Coast are, or
were, associated with that school. Hearing about Alice's pain and anger
towards this school was a shock to me.
As for "so what", well, we all have to decide that for ourselves.
David
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:52:46 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: More on news Article.
David Cann wrote:
)snip(
) However, Hartsbrook was one of the first waldorf schools I learned about
) that had a history of success (or "strength") without being adjacent to
) a major city, and I've often used it as a mental model of "success" for
) my school. Many key players in Waldorf on the US East Coast are, or
) were, associated with that school. Hearing about Alice's pain and anger
) towards this school was a shock to me.
)
) As for "so what", well, we all have to decide that for ourselves.
)
) David
)
)[Alice responds]
I can't tell you how much of a shock all of this has been for us, too.
I will tell you that after this happened to us, I found out there is a
local group of families who meet monthly for support called "THe Fallen
Angels" - families who are trying to figure out harmful experiences that
have happened to their children while at the school.
Some of these involve learning disabilities/differences and other's
involve severe bullying by the children and lack of teacher supervision.
One story is about a pre-school teacher - a leader in this community -
washing out a child's mouth with soap- making him spit the word "penis"
into the sink after he said it in class...(she is still teaching - the
family left.....)
I was very surprised at the variety and severity of what had happened to
these conscious, concerned parents... and the cover-ups seem
particularly disturbing as in our case. They have used the
mandated-reporting confidentiality part to tell any other concerned
parent that they will not speak about it. Then I brought my lawyer, and
now all of the faculty is under a "gag order" because of their fear of
liability. Except that because they refuse to resolve this, that would
propel me to sue them by wanting the truth to come out..
My question is, is it worth it- will they attack my children as they
already have? How low would they go to protect themselves? It seems
clear that they are willing to sacrifice the well-being of any number of
individual children and families to defend one another's actions.
I consider them ethically challenged, disturbed and blinded by their
dogma.
My son was sitting in the row in front of his persecutor-teacher at the
concert last night.(next to one of his classmates...) I wonder what
kind of energetic influence she had on his vulnerable little
spirit.....I was trying to imagine a force field between them and if she
had touched him, I was prepared to leap between.
Does she imagine that we are "fine"?????
-AK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:17:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
I will abide by the list rule of not naming specific
people. (If I had to do again I would name the
perpetrator rather than the victim, which is what I
meant by "inadvertently." Of course, that amounts to
covertly naming the victim.) We clearly come from
completely different cultures and belief systems. I
understand what you are saying, but you have no
understanding of what I have been saying, so it is
therefore an impasse. It has, however, become clear
to me that what you speak of as "confidentiality" also
allows for the community to wiggle out of their
responsibility to our children.
DK
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:19:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Westfall
--- David Cann (canndw netzero.net) wrote:
) I, too, have seen financial manifestations of
) divorce through my role
) (currently treasurer and, before that, finance
) chair) in the waldorf
) school. We have had noncustodial parents who refuse
) to pay toward
) child's tuition. But I have never had anything even
) remotely close
) (that I am aware of) to what Dan calls a "waldorf
) custody case", where a
) parent is dead-set against his/her child even
) attending the waldorf
) school at all, while the other parent is adamantly
) FOR it.
)
) David
)
There is a local family where this was a central
divorce issue.
DK
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:27:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
--- Steve Premo (steve premofine.com) wrote:
) Me? I don't decide who is a lawyer and who is not.
) That is a function of
) the state bar, which administers the bar exam. You
) take the bar exam, you
) pass, you're a lawyer.
That is not how it happens. It concerns me that on a
list dedicated to uncovering the truth, that this is
the type of thinking going on. I have used much of
the Steiner, etal. information from this list to
inform others. I have also read some of Steiner's
books ordered through interlibrary loans frankly to
double check that information, and have found this
list's quotes of Steiner, Finser, etc. to be accurate.
Uncovering WE is a serious proposition for me I know
and I assume that people are making attempts at
accuracy.
DK
DK
) I do look forward to hearing from you offlist about
) your lawyering.
)
) Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
) "There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
) that distinction is not difficult to make." -
) Superman
) http://www.premofine.com
)
)
____________________________________________________________
) T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
) Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You
) Choose.
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:10:37 -0800
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
On 1 Feb 2001, at 8:27, Deborah Kelly wrote:
) --- Steve Premo (steve premofine.com) wrote:
) ) Me? I don't decide who is a lawyer and who is not.
) ) That is a function of
) ) the state bar, which administers the bar exam. You
) ) take the bar exam, you
) ) pass, you're a lawyer.
)
) That is not how it happens.
True. It's a little more complicated. The state bar tends to have other
requirements in addition to passing the bar, such as good moral character.
Someone who has passed the bar can still be disqualified on that basis.
As a lawyer, I'm well aware of what it takes to become one. The only
caveat is that I'm a California lawyer, and Wisconsin may have different
rules about becoming a lawyer. For example, in California the State Bar
administers the bar exam and decides who may be admitted to the practice
of law. In some states, I believe that is a function of the state
government. But I think that in all states, unless you've passed the bar
exam and whatever other requirements they have, you're not a lawyer.
) It concerns me that on a
) list dedicated to uncovering the truth, that this is
) the type of thinking going on.
What type of thinking? If I am mistaken, please enlighten me.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1-Feb-2001 17:14:37 GMT
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Luke Schelly post on tuition contracts
I had planned to re-read our contract before responding, but forgot to
last night. As I remember it, though, it's closer to Lisa's waldorf
school contract than to her new school's contract. We were lucky enough
to have a teacher with administrative experience at two large waldorf
schools arrive, and she has helped us improve our contracts and
enrollment process quite a lot the past few years.
My first impression in reading Lisa's description of the enrollment
contract at the non-WS is that it's so subjective so as to be of little
help should disagreements arise. As such, it struck me more as a
statement of principles (or, more cynically, as a marketing tool) rather
than as a substantive part of the contract. Since Lisa only synopsized
the contract, there well could be additional verbiage that clarifies the
language and establishes clearer procedures, so I stand open to
correction by Lisa (or by others who have seen these longer documents).
This is just my first impression of what she said. After all, my school
strives to provide the same things ("supportive
environment"..."rigor"..."critical thinking") that Lisa details, the
difference is in the means and the measurement, and I don't see how
writing these goals in the contract (without showing HOW they can be
accomplished) is enforceable in any manner.
As for tuition insurance, we don't offer it, but it has been a point of
discussion here. At a business manager/finance meeting I attended at
Sunbridge last year, several of the schools in attendance had some sort
of tuition insurance. Some that I've spoken with think it's great,
others think it's ridiculously expensive and a burden to impose on the
families. As we get larger, though, it may well become necessary;
tracking all those payments gets awfully difficult.
I asked a friend whose children attend a nearby non-Waldorf school, who
said it's optional there and costs something like $300.
David
Lisa Ercolano said:
)
Luke, could you give a few more details about your school's contract,
please? (If you could tell us the name of the school and where it is, I
would also appreciate it.)
Basically, I am most interested in what your school's contract promises
that the school will provide in exchange for the contractee's money.
Does it spell out, in detail, that the child will be educated in a safe
and nurturing environment, etc? Does it promise that the child will get
an education at all?
Or does it merely state that the child is to be enrolled and that
tuition is to be paid in the amount of $XXXX a year, and then sets out
the circumstances under which that contract can be broken and by whom?
I ask because I truly am interested. In my opinion, the contract offered
(and signed by us, for several years) at our former W. school left much
to be desired. (Of course, as I had never signed a private school
contract before this, I had nothing to compare it to.)
The contract basically said that our child would be enrolled and that we
would pay a certain amount over a certain period of time.
What a different document that one was compared to the contract we
signed this year at our younger girl's private school (non-WS)! That
document lays out, in detail, what the school promises, as well as what
they are asking parents to promise (besides money.) Mentioned are: an
education in a safe and nurturing environment; an atmosphere of academic
rigor and tolerance for others; development of critical thinking skills,
and so in, in that vein. In return, we promised to support our child,
monitor her homework and projects, etc.
* One last thing: does your school offer tuition insurance? OUr WS did
not. Our new school does, as do most other high quality private schools.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:26:07 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
)--- Steve Premo (steve premofine.com) wrote:
)) Me? I don't decide who is a lawyer and who is not.
)) That is a function of
)) the state bar, which administers the bar exam. You
)) take the bar exam, you
)) pass, you're a lawyer.
)
[DK]
)That is not how it happens.
[Debra]
How does it happen, then? I'm really curious now. Steve is a practicing
lawyer who may not have had to take that hard state bar test. I've always
wanted to be a lawyer. How else does one become a lawyer? Can you practice
law without taking that test? I think I'd be a good lawyer, but don't have
a lot of time to get my law degree. Is there still hope for me?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:10:32 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
Deborah Kelly wrote:
)
) I will abide by the list rule of not naming specific
) people. (If I had to do again I would name the
) perpetrator rather than the victim, which is what I
) meant by "inadvertently." Of course, that amounts to
) covertly naming the victim.) We clearly come from
) completely different cultures and belief systems. I
) understand what you are saying, but you have no
) understanding of what I have been saying, so it is
) therefore an impasse. It has, however, become clear
) to me that what you speak of as "confidentiality" also
) allows for the community to wiggle out of their
) responsibility to our children.
)
) DK
[ALice responds]
I am sorry to imagine that you believe that I have no understanding of
what you have been saying. I have printed out your Tue. Jan.30 listing
in which you state your ideas about abuse victims and
confidentiality. I usually think it must be me when there is a
communication difference - what you refer to as an impasse. I hope to
re-read what you stated to better understand you.
I believe that it is very personal to be abused - the deepest kind of
personal, which defines what "abuse" is...
Tell me, would it change your opinion of me to tell you I was raped at
eighteen?
AK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:42:21 -0500
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: contracts/was Luke Schelly's post on contracts
David et al:
I will post more details on the (what I think is) a very good contract
tonight, when I have it in front of me.
However, regarding tuition insurance, well, in this neck of the woods,
a family pays about $50 or so for the tuition insurance FOR A YEAR. It
is not ridiculously expensive, and provides surety for both parties in
cases where a child must leave the school for any number of reasons --
the school, that it will get tuition promised, and the family, who
will not have to pay tuition for a school the child is not attending.
The four or five most highly regarded college preparatory private
schools that offer K-12 education in my area (and many more) offer
tuition insurance. And with tuitions in the $13K and up range, even if
the tuition was $300, it would still be worth it.
As to the details offered on the contract that I admire being a
"marketing tool," I agree and disagree. Yes, I certainly was impressed
when I saw the contract, esp. after comparing it to the barebones one
we signed at Waldorf (the pledged, essentially, nothing but that we
would pay tuition.) However, I did not even *see* the contract until
my child was accepted at the school; in other words, we had already
thoroughly researched the school, visited it, interviewed teachers,
alumnae and administrators, and our daughter had visited, been tested
and interviewed, etc., before we saw it. So the contents of the
contract had *nothing* to do with our wanting our daughter to do
there.
The fact that the points mentioned in the contract dovetailed with our
own goals for our child's education was basically just reinforcement
that we had chosen the right place.
Lisa
waldorf-critics topica.com wrote:
) I had planned to re-read our contract before responding, but forgot
to
last night. As I remember it, though, it's closer to Lisa's waldorf
school contract than to her new school's contract. We were lucky
enough
to have a teacher with administrative experience at two large waldorf
schools arrive, and she has helped us improve our contracts and
enrollment process quite a lot the past few years.
My first impression in reading Lisa's description of the enrollment
contract at the non-WS is that it's so subjective so as to be of
little
help should disagreements arise. As such, it struck me more as a
statement of principles (or, more cynically, as a marketing tool)
rather
than as a substantive part of the contract. Since Lisa only
synopsized
the contract, there well could be additional verbiage that clarifies
the
language and establishes clearer procedures, so I stand open to
correction by Lisa (or by others who have seen these longer
documents).
This is just my first impression of what she said. After all, my
school
strives to provide the same things ("supportive
environment"..."rigor"..."critical thinking") that Lisa details, the
difference is in the means and the measurement, and I don't see how
writing these goals in the contract (without showing HOW they can be
accomplished) is enforceable in any manner.
As for tuition insurance, we don't offer it, but it has been a point
of
discussion here. At a business manager/finance meeting I attended at
Sunbridge last year, several of the schools in attendance had some
sort
of tuition insurance. Some that I've spoken with think it's great,
others think it's ridiculously expensive and a burden to impose on the
families. As we get larger, though, it may well become necessary;
tracking all those payments gets awfully difficult.
I asked a friend whose children attend a nearby non-Waldorf school,
who
said it's optional there and costs something like $300.
David
Lisa Ercolano said:
)
Luke, could you give a few more details about your school's contract,
please? (If you could tell us the name of the school and where it is,
I
would also appreciate it.)
Basically, I am most interested in what your school's contract
promises
that the school will provide in exchange for the contractee's money.
Does it spell out, in detail, that the child will be educated in a
safe
and nurturing environment, etc? Does it promise that the child will
get
an education at all?
Or does it merely state that the child is to be enrolled and that
tuition is to be paid in the amount of $XXXX a year, and then sets out
the circumstances under which that contract can be broken and by whom?
I ask because I truly am interested. In my opinion, the contract
offered
(and signed by us, for several years) at our former W. school left
much
to be desired. (Of course, as I had never signed a private school
contract before this, I had nothing to compare it to.)
The contract basically said that our child would be enrolled and that
we
would pay a certain amount over a certain period of time.
What a different document that one was compared to the contract we
signed this year at our younger girl's private school (non-WS)! That
document lays out, in detail, what the school promises, as well as
what
they are asking parents to promise (besides money.) Mentioned are: an
education in a safe and nurturing environment; an atmosphere of
academic
rigor and tolerance for others; development of critical thinking
skills,
and so in, in that vein. In return, we promised to support our child,
monitor her homework and projects, etc.
* One last thing: does your school offer tuition insurance? OUr WS
did
not. Our new school does, as do most other high quality private
schools.
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Ch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:42:38 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
[Deborah:]
)It has, however, become clear to me that what you speak of as
) )"confidentiality" also allows for the community to wiggle out of their
)responsibility to our children.
Deborah, it is true that the community sometimes wiggles out of its
responsibility to children, but in talking about very personal and painful
things in this girl's life **without her permission** you are not fulfilling
some "responsibility" to her. You are gossiping about her. The "without her
permission" part seems to repeatedly escape you.
I would like to ask you to consider whether you think, if this little girl
knew you had talked about this here, or if she found out 10 years from now,
she would feel that you had fulfilled a "responsibility" to her. She's a
real person, I think to you she's just an abstract example of victimization.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:30:35 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: The unfounded allegations on 'Hess' adherence to anthroposophy'
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:46:54 -0600, Peter Staudenmaier posted 20 kb on this =
Hess thing, of which I am getting tired. More than enough has been said. =
In the end, it's pretty simple. =20
1. The degrees with which anthroposophy was rejected differed amongst =
nationalsocialists. Other groups (foremost communists, BTW) were clearly =
higher on their hate list, and some of the products (bio-dynamic food, =
Waldorf schools etc.) did sometimes appeal to people like Hess, in =
particular since the hate ideals of nationalsocialism had very little of =
practical value to offer itself in farming and education, for example.
2. Hess was more favourably inclined to practical enterprises that grew out =
of anthroposophy than most other Nazis.
3. There is absolutely no evidence that Hess ever read anything by Steiner. =
Of course I also cannot prove that Hess never did. Without any evidence, =
I am not inclined to consider Hess an anthroposophist. The fact that he =
supported bio-dynamic farming etc. at times against more vigilant =
hard-liners does not make him an anthroposophist. If Peter S. alleges =
otherwise, so be it. He has no real evidence and thus has to produce 20 kB =
long postings to make it look like he must have something somewhere.
3. But we have made slight progress: Instead of "being an anthroposophist", =
Peter S. is now willing to say:
) (or: was drawn to anthroposophy,depending on how broadly one uses the =
term).
Yes, he was "drawn to anthroposophy" in that he liked bio-dynamic =
vegetables and some of the practices of Waldorf education, however not the =
underlying principles. Ilse Hess may not be a reliable source as far as =
the war crimes are concerned (that doesn't surprise me), but that doesn't =
mean that everything she said should be disregarded.
P. St.: )Hess (...) grasped onto any number of esoteric worldviews in the =
course of his life. One of those was anthroposophy. Nothing is "alleged" in =
that statement.
It is completely alleged, Peter! There is no evidence for "grasping onto =
anthroposophy as an esoteric worldview". You simply cannot deduce that =
from a certain sympathy he seems to have had towards bio-dynamic farming =
and other "products" of anthroposophy.
P. St.: )Hauer's claim to fame on the question of Hess and anthro is that =
he insisted Hess's flight to Britain was somehow induced by the occult =
machinations of anthroposophists. In stark contrast to that ridiculous =
myth, I attribute Hess's flight to his mistaken belief in the possibility =
of a separate peace with the British, a goal which Hess believed Hitler =
shared
We agree.
)What, pray tell, are the similarities that you see between Hauer's line =
and my own?
Both you and Hauer make claims that you do not back up. You may differ =
with regard to the motivation of Hess's airplane trip, but you agree with =
Hauer that Hess was influenced by anthroposophy. Neither of you have any =
evidence. Both of you insist anyway with too many kilobytes of =
irrelevancies.
P. St. )The only thing that distinguished biodynamic cultivation in the =
Third Reich from plain old organic farming was the"worldview" attached to =
it;
That is false. Ever heard of bio-dynamic preparations BD farmers spray in =
their fields?
P. St. ) it is impossible to promote biodynamics without at the very least =
implicitly promoting anthroposophy,
This is the core of Peter S.'s arguments. If this last line is true, you =
can conclude that Hess promoted anthroposophy, and thus is an =
anthroposophist. Sound logic, isn't it?!
The fact are very simple: yes, Hess did eat and like bio-dynamic food =
(undisputed).
)From this, Staudenmaier concludes that Hess was an anthroposophist. Logic: =
see above.
I suppose you can stretch the meaning of words without bounds. But =
somewhere along the line, meaning snaps. You be the judge.
Detlef Hardorp=
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:04:44 -0700
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
This post is disturbing enough to shake me out of lurkdom for a bit.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
Sune quotes a text:
The author of the text has the following comments:
**********************************************************
In an article in Deutschen Wochenschrift 13 July 1888 on 'Papacy and
liberalism' Steiner wrote:
'The barometer of progress in the development of humanity is its view of
freedom, and the practical realization of this view.'
In the article, Steiner also expresses his unambiguous support for 'the
liberal principle as the essence of modern culture.'
He wrote in connection with this:
*****************************************************
'It is our conviction, that the present time is characterized by an
advance [in freedom] that is as important that brought about by the
teachings of Christ: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus."
And what if you don't believe that Jesus is the Christ or deserves that
level of devotion? Are you respected as an equal then?
Just as then the equal value of all people before God and his kind was
recognized, the conviction has become ever more established during the
last centuries, that our task not could consist in submitting to the
precepts of an external authority, and that everything that we believe
and that gives direction our actions should have its origin solely in
the light of reason in our soul.
And if your soul for one reason or another does not subscribe to Christian
beliefs or teachings, do your actions have equal value to those who claim to
be highly Christian inspired?
To only hold that for true, to which our own thinking forces us, and
only move in such social and governmental forms that we give to ourself,
that is the great basic principle of our time.'
****************************************************
This is
‚ a plea for Christianity, whose nature according to Steiner consisted
in the overcoming of the principle of race in favour of the principle of
equality of all people before God and his kind,
What principle of race needs to be overcome? I don't think there is any.
Steiner certainly had strange ideas of racial differences. To me racial
principles like Steiner's don't just need to be overcome, they need to be
identified for the fraudulent concepts they are to begin with.
Sune or the auther goes on to talk about why Steiner is not antisemitic:
The solution lies in the concept of assimilation, that Steiner supported
together with the majority of the European Jews.
When Raphael Loewenfels in 1893, the foundation year of the Central
Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith, wrote that no educated
Jew was prepared to leave his beloved mother country (literally ('father
country') for a country far away, where his forefathers had lived
inconceivably long ago, he according to Laqueurs expressed 'not the
opinion of one individual', but 'the conviction of very many Jews'.
Anyone who calls Steiner's support of assimilation as 'anti-Semitic'
does two things:
- he slanders the majority of the Jews at the end of the 19th century as
being anti-Semites and
I assure you that the majority of Jews at the end of the 19th century did
not believe in assimilation. I am frankly amazed that you are under this
impression. In those days especially things were quite the opposite. Jewish
families struggled against assimilation. When children intermarried,
parents mourned them as if they were dead. Didn't you see Fiddler on the
Roof?
- shows his complete ignorance of Jewish history during the time.
see my last comment. Just who is being ignorant here?
This argument is both weak and offensive. A position held by someone within
a group has a very different valence than the same position by someone
outside the group. For example when a Black person in this country might
say "We African Americans must work harder to move upward in our society."
That means one thing. When a white person says "African Americans must work
harder to move upward in society.", it leans towards racism.
I frankly tire of hearing people of one religion prescribing what people of
other religions should be doing. This represents a provincial backwardness
as far I am concerned, not a higher level of consciousness.
I don't know how virulant an antisemite Steiner was or wasn't, but I do know
that
I would never adopt as my spiritual guide a gentleman who is as
unsophisticated in multicultural issues as he was.
Alan S. Fine MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:08:36 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: tolerance for abuse at Waldorf?
In a post about her former school, Alice says:
((I can't tell you how much of a shock all of this has been for us, too.
I will tell you that after this happened to us, I found out there is a
local group of families who meet monthly for support called "THe Fallen
Angels" - families who are trying to figure out harmful experiences that
have happened to their children while at the school.))
Lisa here: Well, Alice, please let the other "Fallen Angels" know that they
may find some support and information on the Waldorf survivors list.
It is simply amazing to me how a school that supposedly is respected for
being strong and established (and upon whom others may model their
programs!) can continue with that reputation when the teachers, etc. carry
on as you described.
Washing a small child's mouth out with soap, just for saying the word
"penis?" Washing a child's mouth out with soap is a violent and abusive act.
If *any* teacher did it to one of my children, I would be calling an
attorney faster than you can say "etheric body!" (g)
A normal adult would simply laugh (in my opinion) or at least smile (and
try not to laugh) if she/he heard a preschool/kindergarten child say
"penis." How full of anger and weird ideas about human sexuality that
soap-wielding teacher must be!
And the fact that there is an actual *group* of parents of former
students who feel they have somehow been ill-used also is disturbing.
Has anyone contacted the local child protection people about these
goings on? Has anyone tried calling a reporter at a local newspaper or
television station?
Such behavior on the part of teachers certain bears scrutiny, and the
fact that a "group" of former parents who allege these things gives at least
*some* credence to their claims.
Why isn't anyone doing anything about this, or if they are, what is
being done!!!!?????
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 147
-- Topica Digest --
Re: naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Re: more on naming victims
By deborah_kelly yahoo.com
Washing a child's mouth out with soap IS indeed abuse
By irisspringflower yahoo.com
Re: Washing a child's mouth out with soap IS indeed abuse
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: more on naming victims
By steve premofine.com
Re: naming victims
By alice javanet.com
Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
By hardorp gmx.net
PLANS' 'expert' on Waldorf education
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: PLANS' 'expert' on Waldorf education
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: tolerance for abuse at Waldorf?
By Rechomba cs.com
Re: tolerance for abuse at Waldorf?
By Speckraybill aol.com
Teacher qualification
By canndw netzero.net
Re: tolerance for abuse at Waldorf?
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Teacher qualification
By Speckraybill aol.com
Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
By Rechomba cs.com
Re: The unfounded allegations on 'Hess' adherence to anthroposophy'
By Rechomba cs.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
--- Alice Klinge (alice javanet.com) wrote:
) Tell me, would it change your opinion of me to tell
) you I was raped at
) eighteen?
)
) AK
I don't have an opinion of you. I don't know you, so
how could I? And so what? Isn't this why Waldorf
people and others get away with pushing their agendas?
I cannot understand why people worry about others'
opinions, particularly when it's to the detriment of
their children. I especially cannot fathom why anyone
would be concerned with the opinion of unapologetic
bigots such as WE adherents, Anthroposophists. It is
disconcerting how the dominant culture pushes
adherence to politeness at the expense of confronting
destructive activities. It is quite clear how the
various holocausts in human history happened - the
Inquisition lasted over 400 years. Why?
My daughter and I face increased destructive pressure
in this community in large part because of our
confrontation of the Waldorf group and it will only
get more intense because I will not back off. What
sort of adults stand by and watch this happen to a
child and her mother? What sort of adults stand by
and allow children to be harmed, repeatedly? Why
would anyone keep a child in an environment so clearly
destructive as a Waldorf school, rationalizing that
there is some good education in there somewhere?
Cowardice is inexcusable and I wonder why more adults
don't consider why the nursing home industry is
booming? Children do not forget those who hurt them,
including those who stood by while they were being
hurt.
DK
)
____________________________________________________________
) T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
) Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You
) Choose.
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:19:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
Find the law school closest to you and ask them. Each
state has different requirements.
DK
Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) wrote:
) )That is not how it happens.
)
) [Debra]
)
) How does it happen, then? I'm really curious now.
) Steve is a practicing
) lawyer who may not have had to take that hard state
) bar test. I've always
) wanted to be a lawyer. How else does one become a
) lawyer? Can you practice
) law without taking that test? I think I'd be a good
) lawyer, but don't have
) a lot of time to get my law degree. Is there still
) hope for me?
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________________________________________________
) T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
) Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You
) Choose.
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
)
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:28:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Deborah Kelly (deborah_kelly yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
--- Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) wrote:
) What kind of a lawyer are you, Deborah? Are you
) practicing currently? Do
) you work with sexually abused kids?
) -ds
)
The good kind. Yes. Yes.
DK
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:10:47 -0800 (PST)
From: iris springflower (irisspringflower yahoo.com)
Subject: Washing a child's mouth out with soap IS indeed abuse
Hi ALl. I am on many e-mail lists for abuse
survivors, since I am a survivor of childhod/tenage/
and adulthood abuse. I can't name anyody, but there
was a recent thread on one list about parents (or
anyone in authority and who held power over children)
washing out children's mouths with soap. People
posted about their own personal TRAUMA from the above
action, along with beatings, etc.
We all agreed that to wash a child's mouth out with
soap, for ANY reason IS child abuse and DOES leave the
child with long-term serious psychological
aftereffects that reach into adulthood. I NEVER would
do such abuse to a child, no matter WHAT the child
said! For ANYONE , parent, teacher, or other
authority to do this is horrendous! In public
schools, isn't it true that teachers who would wash
out children's mouths with soap would face legal
action against them?
Best Wishes, Iris
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:21:46 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Washing a child's mouth out with soap IS indeed abuse
[Iris wrote:]
)In public schools, isn't it true that teachers who would wash
)out children's mouths with soap would face legal
)action against them?
In the US, it depends where you live. Corporal punishment is legal some
places and not others. For instance it is legal in my state but not in my
city. Corporal punishment is alive and well many places in the US, and I'm
afraid the trend is increasingly in favor of it, and I'm afraid our new
president, who has a strong interest in conservative education "reforms,"
will aid and abet this trend, giving teachers more leeway to do what they
think they must do to maintain order.
If anyone at school ever laid a finger on my child he would be out that day
and never go back.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:00:28 -0800
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: Re: more on naming victims
On 2 Feb 2001, at 6:28, Deborah Kelly wrote:
) --- Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) wrote:
) ) What kind of a lawyer are you, Deborah? Are you
) ) practicing currently? Do
) ) you work with sexually abused kids?
) ) -ds
) )
) The good kind. Yes. Yes.
I must admit here that I was mistaken about the bar exam being required to
practice law in Wisconsin. Another way to become a lawyer in that state
is through what's called the "Diploma Privilege."
Graduates of the University of Wisconsin and Marquette University Law
Schools may practice law where the school directs certification of the
student's legal competence to the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners, which
then investigates the character and fitness of the student and certifies
the student's character, competence, and fitness to the court. The
student is then admitted to the practice of law.
Of course, the result of that is a license to practice law, which Deborah
has stated that she does not have. I still do not understand how she is
entitled to practice law, but I apologize for my mistake about the bar
exam being a requirement for admission to the Wisconsin bar.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:57:56 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: naming victims
Deborah Kelly wrote:
)
) --- Alice Klinge (alice javanet.com) wrote:
) ) Tell me, would it change your opinion of me to tell
) ) you I was raped at
) ) eighteen?
) )
) ) AK
)
) I don't have an opinion of you. I don't know you, so
) how could I? And so what? Isn't this why Waldorf
) people and others get away with pushing their agendas?
) I cannot understand why people worry about others'
) opinions, particularly when it's to the detriment of
) their children. I especially cannot fathom why anyone
) would be concerned with the opinion of unapologetic
) bigots such as WE adherents, Anthroposophists. It is
) disconcerting how the dominant culture pushes
) adherence to politeness at the expense of confronting
) destructive activities. It is quite clear how the
) various holocausts in human history happened - the
) Inquisition lasted over 400 years. Why?
)
) My daughter and I face increased destructive pressure
) in this community in large part because of our
) confrontation of the Waldorf group and it will only
) get more intense because I will not back off. What
) sort of adults stand by and watch this happen to a
) child and her mother? What sort of adults stand by
) and allow children to be harmed, repeatedly? Why
) would anyone keep a child in an environment so clearly
) destructive as a Waldorf school, rationalizing that
) there is some good education in there somewhere?
) Cowardice is inexcusable and I wonder why more adults
) don't consider why the nursing home industry is
) booming? Children do not forget those who hurt them,
) including those who stood by while they were being
) hurt.
)
) DK
[Alice writes]
Some of us try and balance courage and compassion.
I hope you can find the support you need to help you.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:10:01 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner an active opponent of anti-Semitism
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:04:44 -0700
"Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
responded to Sune Nordwall:
)I assure you that the majority of Jews at the end of the 19th century did =
not believe in assimilation. I am frankly amazed that you are under this =
impression. In those days especially things were quite the opposite. =
Jewish families struggled against assimilation. When children =
intermarried,
parents mourned them as if they were dead. Didn't you see Fiddler on =
theRoof?
Alan, the fiddler on the roof (Anatevka) is not set in Germany or Austria! =
We obviously have to differentiate here. In Poland, for example, there =
were huge Jewish ghettos. Not so in Germany, however. Which is not to say =
that everybody there believed in assimilation. The Zionist movement =
existed there as well. But the majority of people of Jewish descent were =
not Zionists. When children intermarried,
parents certainly didn't mourn them as if they were dead! Look at long =
Island, New York, today. The population was about 60 Jewish when I lived =
there. Most of my Jewish friends were assimilated in the sense that they =
were completely part of the culture, in fact they defined the culture to a =
great extent. But it was primarily American culture, not a separate Jewish =
culture. American culture with a Jewish element. I could easily get rye =
bread, for example - probably due to the many German-Jewish immigrants from =
the 30's. And people intermarry all the time! That's the way it was in =
Germany before Hitler came along and divided people along ethnic lines in a =
way totally against the natural development of culture development in =
Germany.
)I frankly tire of hearing people of one religion prescribing what people =
of other religions should be doing.
I agree with that. But Sune didn't do that: he was describing historical =
facts that tend to be overlooked or are simply not known.
Like the fact that there was a lot more antisemitism in France and Russia =
at the end of the 19th century than in Germany, until the beast came along =
and changed the course of history.
Best regards,
Detlef Hardorp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:02:40 +0100
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: PLANS' 'expert' on Waldorf education
Sarina McDonald wrote:
) This man (Dr Barry
) Westfall) is frightening and I would not trust his opinions on
) education - *any* education - without giving his motives and past work
) a long, hard look.
Judging from the way the moderator of the list and the initiator(?) of
both PLANS and PLANS' site quotes a letter by Mr Westfall
(http://www.bradley.edu/academics/ehs/ete/westfall.html), three years
after he wrote it, it seems PLANS' has a quite high opinion of his way
of looking at education and of understanding and judging on the
difference between 'good' education,
- 'a solidly "behaviorist" dominated secondary curriculum' (law and
order and a teaching based on 'an eye for an eye')(?() and 'bad'
education;
- 'feminist-inspired "feel good," "touchy feely" kind of education' that
according to him are the reasons 'why males are running away from it all
[public school teaching] by the thousands' and make 'misguided and angry
MALE adolescents [...] take rifles to their classrooms [...] to solve
their self-esteem needs', that feminist 'extremists' have deprived them
of.
How long has PLANS' recommended Mr Westfall, who describes himself as 'a
naturally suspicious and paranoid German-American' and as an 'expert
witness' on education and especially Waldorf education, about which he
himself says in the quoted mail 'Not that I have ever claimed to be an
expert on any of it'?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:15:42 +0100
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: PLANS' 'expert' on Waldorf education
I wrote:
) Judging from the way the moderator of the list and the initiator(?) of
) both PLANS and PLANS' site quotes a letter by Mr Westfall
) (http://www.bradley.edu/academics/ehs/ete/westfall.html), three years
) after he wrote it
See that it only is clear from the mail by the moderator that only the
actual happening and the meeting with the female Waldorf teacher that Mr
Westfall describes from his perspective took place three year ago, not
necessarily that he wrote the quoted mail three years ago.
If that however is the case, it hints at PLANS having been in contact
with him and possibly used and recommended his 'expertise' on education
for at least three years.
Is that the case?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:30:29 EST
From: Rechomba cs.com
Subject: Re: tolerance for abuse at Waldorf?
In a message dated 2/1/01 8:08:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
momof2gals mindspring.com writes:
) A normal adult would simply laugh (in my opinion) or at least smile (and
) try not to laugh) if she/he heard a preschool/kindergarten child say
) "penis." How full of anger and weird ideas about human sexuality that
) soap-wielding teacher must be!
Precisely