return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: FW: behind the veil...
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: spiral question
By mysplum earthlink.net
Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Theosophy of the R
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: behind the veil...
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
SV: behind the veil...
By gbg2013 minpost.nu
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:51:40 +0000
From: "David Dodds" (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: Re: FW: behind the veil...
)From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: Waldorf-Critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)CC: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)Subject: FW: behind the veil...
)Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:54:36 -0500
)
)Jesus, if you'd like to clarify your statement with specifics, or engage in
)a discussion, I invite you go join the waldorf-critics discussion forum,
)accessible from our web site that you so eloquently reviewed...
)
)...Gary Bonhiver
)
)www.waldorfcritics.org webmaster
)
)----------
) ) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
) ) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
) ) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
) ) Subject: behind the veil...
) )
) ) Dear Puppets
) )
) ) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
) ) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
) ) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
) ) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. No doubt
) ) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
) ) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that
)have
) ) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
) ) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example) I
) ) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
) ) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
) ) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
) ) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
) ) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control. Public
) ) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
) ) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
) ) control right now, it can never stay that way.
) )
) ) The light of truth will always prevail!
) )
) ) WE ARE ALL ONE,
) ) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
) ) VICTORY!!!!
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
Pax vobiscum.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - fast, easy and FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:15:49 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: spiral question
on 2/27/03 9:59 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
) Nicole: In a lecture called The Birth of Light, Steiner wrote,
)
) "Whenever an important event occurs in the world, whenever one stage of
) evolution is superseded by another thereby bringing something new into the
) world, two such spiral movements intertwine. One spiral of the sign of
) Cancer indicates the end of the Atlantean culture; the other, the beginning
) of the Aryan culture."
)
) Children walk one spiral in and the other spiral during the advent spiral
) ceremony. The symbolism seems to come from Steiner's writing about the
) endings and beginnings of evolutionary stages. I suggest you have a look at
) openwaldorf.com/adventspiral.html for more information and interesting links
) on this topic.
)
) Would some of the other Critics (who know more about this than I do) like to
) add something else? Did we have a discussion on this topic earlier? I
) vaguely remember something, but I can't remember how long ago it was or what
) the thread would have been called.
Sharon: That's a great quote you've found there Nicole, another layer of
meaning to the ritual perhaps? Traditionally the spiral represents death and
rebirth. Going into the womb and out. Into the earth and out. I think the
advent spiral is about reincarnation. Waldorfers are giving children another
"mighty picture" of life, death and rebirth, or light, darkness, light.
Seasonal "festivals" (symbolizing life, death, rebirth) play a big role in
Waldorf because they reinforce the idea of cycles. Reincarnation, which is a
dominant theme in Waldorf, was supposedly a recurring theme in other mystery
schools. The evergreens symbolize everlasting life. The child walks into the
spiral and back out. The apples symbolize the fruit of knowledge,
immortality, eternal life. (Occultists tend to believe that Eve got the
knowledge of reincarnation from the sacred serpent guarding the Tree of
Life). Crystals represent spirit.
After leaving Waldorf, I found out about this occasion (somehow we missed
it) and I asked my daughter if she'd ever done the Advent walk. She wrote
down what they had to do, Dan has a copy of that. I was amazed, they prepare
days in advance, make wax animals, light candles, cover windows with black
paper...there was also a description of an angel who either took the apple
with the candle in it or gave it, can't remember. PLANS has a fabulous video
tape of this event at a public Waldorf school.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:30:52 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C2DF03.B444D120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with someone who wrote to
PLANS recently (she gave permission - I suggested she subscribe to
critics but don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website is problematic,
if we are going to criticize Steiner's racism, since Jefferson also
held racial views and owned slaves. We are interested in hearing
others' thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's picture is
justified? Or hypocritical? The correspondence follows for those who
are interested.
*************************
KAY BOLDEN WROTE:
Dear friends,
Thank you for a most interesting site. I'm involved with a group of
parents looking to create an exciting, creative preschool for our
kids, and we have been researching many method schools, including the
Waldorf model. All information you provide gives us a little more to
chew on.
However, I feel bound to point this out: As a Black parent, I tend to
be suspicious of groups who label someone racist (R. Steiner) when it
helps their agenda, and completely ignore the issue when it does not
(Thomas Jefferson).
Steiner's beliefs about the intellectual superiority of Whites was
common in his time (indeed, it is quite common today, although not
often spoken aloud!). Thomas Jefferson -- prominently featured on
your site -- also has many racist remarks to his credit and of
course, he actually owned slaves. You obviously don't think his
buying and selling of human beings negates all his other
contributions. Should I now discount all of your assertions because
of your reverence for Jefferson, a racist? Of course not.
In my experience, there is racism running rampant in the public and
parochial schools, and I would not be a bit surprised to find it at a
Waldorf school or anywhere else.
Our parent group is looking for teaching methods and preschool models
to nurture our children. We need data we can use to judge whether the
method itself would be adaptable for us.
Thanks for listening to my 2 cents ...
Kay Bolden
**************************************
DIANA REPLIED:
Thanks for your note to PLANS, we appreciate your interest, and your
comments about Jefferson and Steiner. We will take them into
consideration - we have had similar feedback before. It is really
worth considering whether we ought to feature Jefferson's picture and
you've sparked a discussion.
Our feeling is - though it is open to change - that it is not exactly
analogous between Steiner schools and PLANS having Jefferson's
picture on the website, however. Waldorf teachers study mainly
Steiner in their teacher training, and follow his "indications" and
instructions very rigidly, about even the smallest details of school
activities and school life, what color to paint the classroom walls,
which grain to each on which day of the week. Some Waldorf teachers
don't even know about Steiner's racism, but many do, and are very
uncomfortable dealing with it. The movement as a whole won't deal
with it. If there were "Jefferson" schools designed entirely on
Thomas Jefferson's writings, and the teachers studied only Jefferson
in preparation for teaching, and refused to repudiate slavery just
because Jefferson owned slaves . . . then Jefferson's racism would be
relevant to those schools as Steiner's is to Waldorf.
Yes, Steiner's beliefs were common in his day, and so were
Jefferson's, but we don't normally hold onto and defend Jefferson's
racist views today. Steiner has a cult-type following. His followers
*could* simply toss out the racism, without it negating his other
contributions, but they don't, because he is their guru and they
believe he was clairvoyant, so he can't be wrong about anything.
(Needless to say, this leads to lots of other problems in these
schools.) And yes, there can be racists in any school, but isn't it a
particular problem if the school's founder was racist, and racism is
central to his views?
I'd be interested if that analogy clears up our position somewhat
about Steiner's racism, or if you have other questions or comments
about it we would certainly be interested in hearing them.
I wasn't sure if you were hoping to get other types of information on
Waldorf from us? If so, let me know more specifically what questions
you have. Thanks for writing.
**************************************
KAY THEN REPLIED:
Diana,
Thanks for your response. You make a valid distinction between
Steiner and Jefferson. It's just that racism -- and sexism -- were
also central to the views of our founding fathers. If I dismiss the
entire Waldorf model on the basis of Steiner's racism -- if I dismiss
the whole of ANYTHING on that basis -- then I will have to give up my
love of the Declaration of Independence, Ernest Hemingway novels, and
pecan pie!
And no, we don't normally defend Jefferson's views today -- we do
something far more hypocritical. We pretend he didn't have them.
MY real concern about Waldorf, is the difficulty of getting straight
answers about things. The curriculum is so vague, the beliefs and
goals of the teacher/staff become extremely important.
Others in our parent group are also concerned about the so-called
hidden religious aspects. We've talked to parents who had wonderful
Waldorf experiences, and others who went on and on about prayers and
music that sounded perfectly innocent to us.
Do you think it's possible that there are just some bad Waldorf
schools, run by religious extremists? And that others are warm,
nurturing places, run by people without a hidden agenda? And if we
visit one (which we will be doing in the next couple of weeks), how
can we tell the difference?
Thanks again Diana, I appreciate any additional info you can offer.
**********************
Diana then replied asking if she'd like to discuss it on critics, and
continued in response to Kay's last question above:
In brief, the schools do vary depending on who is running them, some
anthroposophists are very dogmatic and others less so. The
dogmatically minded do tend to end up running the schools just
because they feel most strongly about doing things a certain way,
usually rather rigidly. It would be hard to tell "how to tell"
exactly in a brief visit, but if you like I'll try to put together
some questions you could ask or tips on what you're looking at in the
classroom. Your group is concerned mainly with preschool, right? My
best advice would be to take the activities you see in a Waldorf
kindergarten, like baking bread, knitting, songs, puppetry etc., and
do it your own way. It's the rigidity in Waldorf that messes up their
good ideas.
Diana
**********************************
KAY SAID:
Hi Diana,
Feel free to share my email with the rest of your group and with your
critics mailing list.
The info on your site really sparked a discussion among our parent
group as well! We have decided to handle the Waldorf visit like this:
2 of us will take specific notes about what we see and hear; 2 of us
will concentrate on atmosphere, feelings, and non-verbal cues in the
environment; 2 of us will directly engage in questions/answers. We've
got the senses covered :-)!
Can we contact you after the visit and share our experience, get some
feedback from you?
Thanks again,
Kay
********************
(I'm responding again this morning and will post that later.) Since
she said it was ok to forward her mail, I assume it is ok for people
to write to her directly if they want: kbolden ameritech.net
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:38:01 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
) Today is Rudolf Steiner's 142nd birthday (1861).
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Lisa here: Maybe he has already reincarnated as a fair haired, blue eyed
child who attends a Waldorf school somewhere "hilly and green in America."
Waldorf teachers: keep your eyes out! (g)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:47:01 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Theosophy of the R
on 2/27/03 10:51 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
Peter:
)
) In conjunction with his rigidly hierarchical conception of racial
)) and national categories, this doctrine yields some distinctly unpleasant
))
)) results.
)
) Percedol:
) The idea that there can be Archangels that are national spirits does not
) imply anything negative, it implies that there are spirits that take
) part in our evolution. Better than a materialistc world where everything
) happens just by chance and where there is nothing after death. That must
) be quite a difficult idea to live with if taken seriously.
Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/Anthroposophist Percedol. I
can't help but wonder who or what makes the "beings" tick, surely there
needs to be an explanation for what lies behind the spiritual world...and
behind that world...?I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help me,
manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world, things
don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is eternal
bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
avoid burning in hell, or saved by Steiner in order to strive to avoid
Steiner's hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what they
may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us who
don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
"advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
Eternal. Even Steiner's promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
prefer death. Accepting Steiner's dictums would make my life utterly
pointless which is why I'm not an Anthroposophist.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:32:05 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: behind the veil...
on 2/27/03 9:54 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
)) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
)) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
)) Subject: behind the veil...
))
)) Dear Puppets
Sharon: Hi there Jesus!
))
)) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
)) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
)) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
)) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Sharon: Um? Which masters are we talking about Jesus? Ahriman? The Devil?
Sorath? Koot Hoomi? Lucifer??
No doubt
)) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
)) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that have
)) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
)) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example)
Sharon: Oh the Satanic cult scare of the 1980s...haven't you heard? That was
just a bunch of bogus accusations. People who study cults use that as an
example of a "Satanic cult scare" where media-cult-hype reinforced cult
stereotypes like "cults are places of mass suicide, "Satanic" or "Voodoo"
ritual abuse, violence, child abuse and sex abuse". There have been many of
these scares throughout the last century, hardly any of them valid. I
recommend that you read Philip Jenkin's book "Mystics and Messiahs, Cults
and new Religions in American History." I think you've missed the entire
point of PLANS. It seems like you are the one being manipulated.
I
)) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
)) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
)) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
)) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
)) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control.
Sharon: Get it straight...we are working to get Waldorf to uphold the First
Amendment and to be forthright to parents. So are you talking about Ahriman?
Public
)) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
)) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
)) control right now, it can never stay that way.
Sharon: Church and State separation (if "you people" means Church-State
separationists) is hardly in control, in fact, there are more violations of
the First Amendment today than ever! The American Pope is working hard on
"faith based" initiatives and whittling away the wall. We might as well be
living in a Theocracy with the way things are going, so your "news" is not
news to me! Who's spiritual knowledge are we talking about anyway Jesus,
yours? Mormons? Christians? Anthroposophists? "Moonies"? Rosicrucians?...
Let's get clear about that first, which "truth" is "truth"? You have a very
bleak picture of public school don't you. I don't hear Waldorf-critics
defending it very much. Many people chose Waldorf for their children because
they don't love public schools. Personally, my daughter's post Waldorf
public school experience was very positive, so I don't hold such a negative
view of it, though there is always room for improvement.
))
)) The light of truth will always prevail!
))
)) WE ARE ALL ONE,
)) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
)) VICTORY!!!!
Sharon: You sound a little conflicted there Jesus. One? Love? Victory? Hmmm.
Again, which light of truth is it Jesus?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:34:50 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
) Peter F responds:
) The materialist position is not that everything happens by chance.
P:
Meaning that there is not a spiritual reason behind each event. For
spiritualism the physical plane is a plane of effects. Causes are
elesewhere. I think that's the difference.
The position of most (but not
) all) materialists is that there is nothing after death. The materialist
) position may or may not be a difficult idea to live with but that's not
) the
) point. The point is what makes more sense in the light of the evidence.
P:
There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's
experience may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
) Percedol is strong on making assertions and claims but weak in coming up
)
) with any evidence to support those claims.
P:
I doubt there could be incontrovertible proof of the spiritual otherwise
there would be no freedom to choose the spiritual. It's a personal
matter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:09 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/A. Percedol.
P:
A nationalist? No way. It would be a little bit hard in Italy. There is
little sense of nation here.
I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
) animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help
) me,
) manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world,
) things
) don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is
) eternal
) bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
) avoid burning in hell, or saved by S. in order to strive to avoid
) S.'s hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
) inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what
) they
) may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us
) who
) don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
) "advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
) speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
) Eternal. Even S.'s promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
) all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
) prefer death. Accepting S.'s dictums would make my life utterly
) pointless which is why I'm not an A.
P:
That's OK.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:40:07 +0100
From: "Lennart Sundstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m" (gbg2013 minpost.nu)
Subject: SV: behind the veil...
) Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
) dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
) Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
) Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
George W Bush?
George W Bush?
George W Bush!!!
He must be the reincarnation of Rudi, or am I just plain stupid?
) Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
) Pax vobiscum.
Pax Americana regards,
Lennart
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 01:04:47 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01C2DF8E.8D8BE1A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana:
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with
someone who wrote to PLANS recently (she gave
permission - I suggested she subscribe to critics but
don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website
is problematic, if we are going to criticize Steiner's
racism, since Jefferson also held racial views and
owned slaves. We are interested in hearing others'
thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's
picture is justified? Or hypocritical? The
correspondence follows for those who are interested.
Jeanine:
I think Kay has a good point, not only on the racism
issue but I found the Jefferson imagery and
religion/public school issue distracting as a
prospective Waldorf parent. I initially found the
site in 1999 and, if I recall correctly, it was
primarily Dan Dugan's site, and the main issue it was raising
against Waldorf education was its entry into the
public domain. Believing it was created by activist
civil libertarians I moved on. Obviously a mistake
because it probably contained a lot of valuable
information that may have helped me avoid Waldorf; but
as many internet users do, I quickly scanned the site
to evaluate it and moved on. Although I certainly
sympathize with PLANS lawsuit, my main concern, even
post Waldorf, is to force more honesty from the
schools about anthroposophy and how it is deeply
embedded in the school's culture and curriculum.
However, when one reviews even the current PLANS site,
the religious freedom aspect looms large (see photo in
front of Independence Hall).
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol? This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that
the PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in
Waldorf recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages? Does PLANS
see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or are both
concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Jeanine
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 980
-- Topica Digest --
Re: FW: behind the veil...
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: spiral question
By mysplum earthlink.net
Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Theosophy of the R
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: behind the veil...
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
SV: behind the veil...
By gbg2013 minpost.nu
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:51:40 +0000
From: "David Dodds" (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: Re: FW: behind the veil...
)From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: Waldorf-Critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)CC: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)Subject: FW: behind the veil...
)Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:54:36 -0500
)
)Jesus, if you'd like to clarify your statement with specifics, or engage in
)a discussion, I invite you go join the waldorf-critics discussion forum,
)accessible from our web site that you so eloquently reviewed...
)
)...Gary Bonhiver
)
)www.waldorfcritics.org webmaster
)
)----------
) ) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
) ) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
) ) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
) ) Subject: behind the veil...
) )
) ) Dear Puppets
) )
) ) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
) ) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
) ) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
) ) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. No doubt
) ) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
) ) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that
)have
) ) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
) ) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example) I
) ) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
) ) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
) ) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
) ) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
) ) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control. Public
) ) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
) ) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
) ) control right now, it can never stay that way.
) )
) ) The light of truth will always prevail!
) )
) ) WE ARE ALL ONE,
) ) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
) ) VICTORY!!!!
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
Pax vobiscum.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - fast, easy and FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:15:49 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: spiral question
on 2/27/03 9:59 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
) Nicole: In a lecture called The Birth of Light, Steiner wrote,
)
) "Whenever an important event occurs in the world, whenever one stage of
) evolution is superseded by another thereby bringing something new into the
) world, two such spiral movements intertwine. One spiral of the sign of
) Cancer indicates the end of the Atlantean culture; the other, the beginning
) of the Aryan culture."
)
) Children walk one spiral in and the other spiral during the advent spiral
) ceremony. The symbolism seems to come from Steiner's writing about the
) endings and beginnings of evolutionary stages. I suggest you have a look at
) openwaldorf.com/adventspiral.html for more information and interesting links
) on this topic.
)
) Would some of the other Critics (who know more about this than I do) like to
) add something else? Did we have a discussion on this topic earlier? I
) vaguely remember something, but I can't remember how long ago it was or what
) the thread would have been called.
Sharon: That's a great quote you've found there Nicole, another layer of
meaning to the ritual perhaps? Traditionally the spiral represents death and
rebirth. Going into the womb and out. Into the earth and out. I think the
advent spiral is about reincarnation. Waldorfers are giving children another
"mighty picture" of life, death and rebirth, or light, darkness, light.
Seasonal "festivals" (symbolizing life, death, rebirth) play a big role in
Waldorf because they reinforce the idea of cycles. Reincarnation, which is a
dominant theme in Waldorf, was supposedly a recurring theme in other mystery
schools. The evergreens symbolize everlasting life. The child walks into the
spiral and back out. The apples symbolize the fruit of knowledge,
immortality, eternal life. (Occultists tend to believe that Eve got the
knowledge of reincarnation from the sacred serpent guarding the Tree of
Life). Crystals represent spirit.
After leaving Waldorf, I found out about this occasion (somehow we missed
it) and I asked my daughter if she'd ever done the Advent walk. She wrote
down what they had to do, Dan has a copy of that. I was amazed, they prepare
days in advance, make wax animals, light candles, cover windows with black
paper...there was also a description of an angel who either took the apple
with the candle in it or gave it, can't remember. PLANS has a fabulous video
tape of this event at a public Waldorf school.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:30:52 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C2DF03.B444D120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with someone who wrote to
PLANS recently (she gave permission - I suggested she subscribe to
critics but don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website is problematic,
if we are going to criticize Steiner's racism, since Jefferson also
held racial views and owned slaves. We are interested in hearing
others' thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's picture is
justified? Or hypocritical? The correspondence follows for those who
are interested.
*************************
KAY BOLDEN WROTE:
Dear friends,
Thank you for a most interesting site. I'm involved with a group of
parents looking to create an exciting, creative preschool for our
kids, and we have been researching many method schools, including the
Waldorf model. All information you provide gives us a little more to
chew on.
However, I feel bound to point this out: As a Black parent, I tend to
be suspicious of groups who label someone racist (R. Steiner) when it
helps their agenda, and completely ignore the issue when it does not
(Thomas Jefferson).
Steiner's beliefs about the intellectual superiority of Whites was
common in his time (indeed, it is quite common today, although not
often spoken aloud!). Thomas Jefferson -- prominently featured on
your site -- also has many racist remarks to his credit and of
course, he actually owned slaves. You obviously don't think his
buying and selling of human beings negates all his other
contributions. Should I now discount all of your assertions because
of your reverence for Jefferson, a racist? Of course not.
In my experience, there is racism running rampant in the public and
parochial schools, and I would not be a bit surprised to find it at a
Waldorf school or anywhere else.
Our parent group is looking for teaching methods and preschool models
to nurture our children. We need data we can use to judge whether the
method itself would be adaptable for us.
Thanks for listening to my 2 cents ...
Kay Bolden
**************************************
DIANA REPLIED:
Thanks for your note to PLANS, we appreciate your interest, and your
comments about Jefferson and Steiner. We will take them into
consideration - we have had similar feedback before. It is really
worth considering whether we ought to feature Jefferson's picture and
you've sparked a discussion.
Our feeling is - though it is open to change - that it is not exactly
analogous between Steiner schools and PLANS having Jefferson's
picture on the website, however. Waldorf teachers study mainly
Steiner in their teacher training, and follow his "indications" and
instructions very rigidly, about even the smallest details of school
activities and school life, what color to paint the classroom walls,
which grain to each on which day of the week. Some Waldorf teachers
don't even know about Steiner's racism, but many do, and are very
uncomfortable dealing with it. The movement as a whole won't deal
with it. If there were "Jefferson" schools designed entirely on
Thomas Jefferson's writings, and the teachers studied only Jefferson
in preparation for teaching, and refused to repudiate slavery just
because Jefferson owned slaves . . . then Jefferson's racism would be
relevant to those schools as Steiner's is to Waldorf.
Yes, Steiner's beliefs were common in his day, and so were
Jefferson's, but we don't normally hold onto and defend Jefferson's
racist views today. Steiner has a cult-type following. His followers
*could* simply toss out the racism, without it negating his other
contributions, but they don't, because he is their guru and they
believe he was clairvoyant, so he can't be wrong about anything.
(Needless to say, this leads to lots of other problems in these
schools.) And yes, there can be racists in any school, but isn't it a
particular problem if the school's founder was racist, and racism is
central to his views?
I'd be interested if that analogy clears up our position somewhat
about Steiner's racism, or if you have other questions or comments
about it we would certainly be interested in hearing them.
I wasn't sure if you were hoping to get other types of information on
Waldorf from us? If so, let me know more specifically what questions
you have. Thanks for writing.
**************************************
KAY THEN REPLIED:
Diana,
Thanks for your response. You make a valid distinction between
Steiner and Jefferson. It's just that racism -- and sexism -- were
also central to the views of our founding fathers. If I dismiss the
entire Waldorf model on the basis of Steiner's racism -- if I dismiss
the whole of ANYTHING on that basis -- then I will have to give up my
love of the Declaration of Independence, Ernest Hemingway novels, and
pecan pie!
And no, we don't normally defend Jefferson's views today -- we do
something far more hypocritical. We pretend he didn't have them.
MY real concern about Waldorf, is the difficulty of getting straight
answers about things. The curriculum is so vague, the beliefs and
goals of the teacher/staff become extremely important.
Others in our parent group are also concerned about the so-called
hidden religious aspects. We've talked to parents who had wonderful
Waldorf experiences, and others who went on and on about prayers and
music that sounded perfectly innocent to us.
Do you think it's possible that there are just some bad Waldorf
schools, run by religious extremists? And that others are warm,
nurturing places, run by people without a hidden agenda? And if we
visit one (which we will be doing in the next couple of weeks), how
can we tell the difference?
Thanks again Diana, I appreciate any additional info you can offer.
**********************
Diana then replied asking if she'd like to discuss it on critics, and
continued in response to Kay's last question above:
In brief, the schools do vary depending on who is running them, some
anthroposophists are very dogmatic and others less so. The
dogmatically minded do tend to end up running the schools just
because they feel most strongly about doing things a certain way,
usually rather rigidly. It would be hard to tell "how to tell"
exactly in a brief visit, but if you like I'll try to put together
some questions you could ask or tips on what you're looking at in the
classroom. Your group is concerned mainly with preschool, right? My
best advice would be to take the activities you see in a Waldorf
kindergarten, like baking bread, knitting, songs, puppetry etc., and
do it your own way. It's the rigidity in Waldorf that messes up their
good ideas.
Diana
**********************************
KAY SAID:
Hi Diana,
Feel free to share my email with the rest of your group and with your
critics mailing list.
The info on your site really sparked a discussion among our parent
group as well! We have decided to handle the Waldorf visit like this:
2 of us will take specific notes about what we see and hear; 2 of us
will concentrate on atmosphere, feelings, and non-verbal cues in the
environment; 2 of us will directly engage in questions/answers. We've
got the senses covered :-)!
Can we contact you after the visit and share our experience, get some
feedback from you?
Thanks again,
Kay
********************
(I'm responding again this morning and will post that later.) Since
she said it was ok to forward her mail, I assume it is ok for people
to write to her directly if they want: kbolden ameritech.net
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:38:01 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
) Today is Rudolf Steiner's 142nd birthday (1861).
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Lisa here: Maybe he has already reincarnated as a fair haired, blue eyed
child who attends a Waldorf school somewhere "hilly and green in America."
Waldorf teachers: keep your eyes out! (g)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:47:01 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Theosophy of the R
on 2/27/03 10:51 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
Peter:
)
) In conjunction with his rigidly hierarchical conception of racial
)) and national categories, this doctrine yields some distinctly unpleasant
))
)) results.
)
) Percedol:
) The idea that there can be Archangels that are national spirits does not
) imply anything negative, it implies that there are spirits that take
) part in our evolution. Better than a materialistc world where everything
) happens just by chance and where there is nothing after death. That must
) be quite a difficult idea to live with if taken seriously.
Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/Anthroposophist Percedol. I
can't help but wonder who or what makes the "beings" tick, surely there
needs to be an explanation for what lies behind the spiritual world...and
behind that world...?I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help me,
manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world, things
don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is eternal
bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
avoid burning in hell, or saved by Steiner in order to strive to avoid
Steiner's hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what they
may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us who
don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
"advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
Eternal. Even Steiner's promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
prefer death. Accepting Steiner's dictums would make my life utterly
pointless which is why I'm not an Anthroposophist.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:32:05 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: behind the veil...
on 2/27/03 9:54 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
)) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
)) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
)) Subject: behind the veil...
))
)) Dear Puppets
Sharon: Hi there Jesus!
))
)) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
)) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
)) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
)) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Sharon: Um? Which masters are we talking about Jesus? Ahriman? The Devil?
Sorath? Koot Hoomi? Lucifer??
No doubt
)) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
)) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that have
)) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
)) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example)
Sharon: Oh the Satanic cult scare of the 1980s...haven't you heard? That was
just a bunch of bogus accusations. People who study cults use that as an
example of a "Satanic cult scare" where media-cult-hype reinforced cult
stereotypes like "cults are places of mass suicide, "Satanic" or "Voodoo"
ritual abuse, violence, child abuse and sex abuse". There have been many of
these scares throughout the last century, hardly any of them valid. I
recommend that you read Philip Jenkin's book "Mystics and Messiahs, Cults
and new Religions in American History." I think you've missed the entire
point of PLANS. It seems like you are the one being manipulated.
I
)) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
)) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
)) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
)) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
)) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control.
Sharon: Get it straight...we are working to get Waldorf to uphold the First
Amendment and to be forthright to parents. So are you talking about Ahriman?
Public
)) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
)) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
)) control right now, it can never stay that way.
Sharon: Church and State separation (if "you people" means Church-State
separationists) is hardly in control, in fact, there are more violations of
the First Amendment today than ever! The American Pope is working hard on
"faith based" initiatives and whittling away the wall. We might as well be
living in a Theocracy with the way things are going, so your "news" is not
news to me! Who's spiritual knowledge are we talking about anyway Jesus,
yours? Mormons? Christians? Anthroposophists? "Moonies"? Rosicrucians?...
Let's get clear about that first, which "truth" is "truth"? You have a very
bleak picture of public school don't you. I don't hear Waldorf-critics
defending it very much. Many people chose Waldorf for their children because
they don't love public schools. Personally, my daughter's post Waldorf
public school experience was very positive, so I don't hold such a negative
view of it, though there is always room for improvement.
))
)) The light of truth will always prevail!
))
)) WE ARE ALL ONE,
)) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
)) VICTORY!!!!
Sharon: You sound a little conflicted there Jesus. One? Love? Victory? Hmmm.
Again, which light of truth is it Jesus?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:34:50 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
) Peter F responds:
) The materialist position is not that everything happens by chance.
P:
Meaning that there is not a spiritual reason behind each event. For
spiritualism the physical plane is a plane of effects. Causes are
elesewhere. I think that's the difference.
The position of most (but not
) all) materialists is that there is nothing after death. The materialist
) position may or may not be a difficult idea to live with but that's not
) the
) point. The point is what makes more sense in the light of the evidence.
P:
There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's
experience may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
) Percedol is strong on making assertions and claims but weak in coming up
)
) with any evidence to support those claims.
P:
I doubt there could be incontrovertible proof of the spiritual otherwise
there would be no freedom to choose the spiritual. It's a personal
matter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:09 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/A. Percedol.
P:
A nationalist? No way. It would be a little bit hard in Italy. There is
little sense of nation here.
I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
) animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help
) me,
) manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world,
) things
) don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is
) eternal
) bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
) avoid burning in hell, or saved by S. in order to strive to avoid
) S.'s hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
) inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what
) they
) may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us
) who
) don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
) "advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
) speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
) Eternal. Even S.'s promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
) all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
) prefer death. Accepting S.'s dictums would make my life utterly
) pointless which is why I'm not an A.
P:
That's OK.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:40:07 +0100
From: "Lennart Sundstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m" (gbg2013 minpost.nu)
Subject: SV: behind the veil...
) Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
) dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
) Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
) Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
George W Bush?
George W Bush?
George W Bush!!!
He must be the reincarnation of Rudi, or am I just plain stupid?
) Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
) Pax vobiscum.
Pax Americana regards,
Lennart
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 01:04:47 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01C2DF8E.8D8BE1A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana:
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with
someone who wrote to PLANS recently (she gave
permission - I suggested she subscribe to critics but
don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website
is problematic, if we are going to criticize Steiner's
racism, since Jefferson also held racial views and
owned slaves. We are interested in hearing others'
thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's
picture is justified? Or hypocritical? The
correspondence follows for those who are interested.
Jeanine:
I think Kay has a good point, not only on the racism
issue but I found the Jefferson imagery and
religion/public school issue distracting as a
prospective Waldorf parent. I initially found the
site in 1999 and, if I recall correctly, it was
primarily Dan Dugan's site, and the main issue it was raising
against Waldorf education was its entry into the
public domain. Believing it was created by activist
civil libertarians I moved on. Obviously a mistake
because it probably contained a lot of valuable
information that may have helped me avoid Waldorf; but
as many internet users do, I quickly scanned the site
to evaluate it and moved on. Although I certainly
sympathize with PLANS lawsuit, my main concern, even
post Waldorf, is to force more honesty from the
schools about anthroposophy and how it is deeply
embedded in the school's culture and curriculum.
However, when one reviews even the current PLANS site,
the religious freedom aspect looms large (see photo in
front of Independence Hall).
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol? This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that
the PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in
Waldorf recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages? Does PLANS
see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or are both
concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Jeanine
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 980
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 11:38:22 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3129363502_825689_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 1:04 AM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol?
Sharon: Litigation is what causes change more than any other tool in this
country. PLANS case is important for many reasons, including 1) to cause
Waldorf to be open to parents about their esoteric mission, 2) to stop the
schools expanding using public monies and 3) to set a precedent for other
church state cases. I am not a lawyer, nor an official spokesperson for
PLANS, but this is how I see it. PLANS is anti-racism, (consequently anti
Steiner doctrine) but pro church and state separation. We want the State and
Waldorf to uphold the First Amendment. We admit that Jefferson was a racist
(most Anthroposophists won't admit that Steiner or his doctrine was/is
racist) but even though we would agree that Jefferson was a racist, we use
Jefferson as a symbol because of his contributions to establishing church
state separation / religious freedom in the early days of this country. What
he wrote still applies today in First Amendment cases. An important modern
precedent, Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) still
stands, it has not been struck down. In the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson
decision, forbidding New Jersey to spend state education funds for religious
education Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church
& State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1, 1802 letter to a group of Baptists in
Massachusetts .
Justice David Souter is a proponent of the First Amendment and upholds
church/state separation. In 2002, regarding Ohio's voucher program, Souter
said :
"...The applicability of the Establishment Clause to public funding of
benefits to religious schools was settled in Everson vs. Board of Education
of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), which inaugurated the modern era of
establishment doctrine. The Court stated the principle in words from which
there was no dissent:
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion".
The Court has never in so many words repudiated this statement, let alone,
in so many words, over ruled Everson." (Freethought Today, August 22002 p
11).
Sharon: The conservative court (Scalia et al) are trying to undermine this
ruling, but it still has not been struck down as Souter notes. Jefferson is
part of all this whether we like it or not. Our case *is* political.
Jeanine:
This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
Sharon: You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided to
take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out of the
personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many people don't want
to share their personal stories or publish them on the net, we've certainly
asked people if they would be willing to come forward, but most people don't
want to--even I , who has blabbed on about Waldorf for years all over the
internet--don't tell some of the really personal stuff because I want to
protect my daughter's privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the
teachers etc. at our ex-school. It's complicated. Waldorf still affects my
family and extended family to this day, years after leaving, and not just
because I decided to help PLANS, but I seldom talk about the very personal.
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories, and
negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into ideological,
political and national concerns. In order to cause change within Waldorf, we
have to litigate, how else? Dan tried to get his school to address Steiner's
racist work which was being sold at his school, and he was kicked out.
Eugene Schwartz tried to get Waldorf to be more open and he was fired. It
was because of Waldorf's move into the public sector that Dan and Debra took
the plunge and filed suit, realizing that the State has no business
advancing Anthroposophy. What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was
huge in scope! The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their
lives (could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time, commitment
and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a public stand. It
isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount of commitment and time,
daily. We aren't going to get anywhere without a legal ruling, hopefully in
our favor. PLANS bandies Jefferson around because the PLANS case is a First
Amendment issue, that is what it boils down to. It becomes a personal issue
when a private person sues Waldorf for consumer fraud. We are alleging First
Amendment violations because we believe that the public should not be
forced to advance Anthroposophy. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers working our
fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the best we know how. A
lot of thought went into the case, but we are just " ordinary people who had
an extraordinary Waldorf experience" as Debra would say. We could use help
in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At the moment we are
collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in the classroom, which we
will display on the PLANS site. This takes *vast* amounts of time which we
all give as volunteers. Perhaps you have some lessons to contribute? If you
have a personal story that you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on
our site that people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to
collect such stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
J: From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
Sharon: Because it is a matter of religion, in which Waldorf is free to
practice, the personal comes down to a church state separation issue, unless
a private individual would sue on grounds of consumer fraud. Some of us have
talked about a class action suit on these grounds, but nothing has come of
it yet. Extremely complex.
J:I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that the
PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in Waldorf
recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages?
Sharon: Yes, if people would come forward with their stories and someone
would volunteer to organize it. It would also be good if people would put
their name to their stories, but few people want to make that stand.
J: Does PLANS see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or
are both concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Sharon: I think both concerns are of equal weight, but the personal
translates to the bigger, more political, public cause. Our case is
political, we are suing two public Waldorf schools as citizens, for
violating the First Amendment. We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist and that the government has no
business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with tax
payer's money. The government has to be neutral when it comes to religion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 05:23:56 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
mysplum wrote:
We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
P:
And you have no problem with it!
Interesting.
) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
) try
) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P:
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
and that the government has no
) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
) tax
) payer's money.
P:
The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
different name taking the distance from it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:02:38 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/2/03 12:23 AM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Very interesting choice of words, Percedol...
"we will follow RS teachings"
"Following" indicates subservience. Interesting that you don't include
teachings of other legendary Anthroposophists who have expanded on Steiner's
original ideas (are there any?). And you don't frame Anthroposophy as a
philosphy that stands on its own, without frequently invoking Steiner.
Sounds like you are a religious follower to me, Percedol.
A religion by any other name...would still be a religion!
...Gary
"What?s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell
as sweet". Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet [1594-1595]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:15:27 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon wrote:
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P replied::
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Do we *once again* need to display Steiner's racist passages and disturbing
racial theories? P, *who* here has distorted *what* - exactly? Further -
how has anything been misinterpreted? You have made this accusation (above)
and we deserve an explanation. Please try.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:58:13 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C2E04E.6B34F9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS websiteSharon, let me start
by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my journey post
Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that led
me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and Debra being
the steadfast providers of a valuable resource and incisive arguments
to anyone curious about Waldorf education. Most importantly, it has
been a digital petrie dish for assessing the strengths and weaknesses
on both sides of the Waldorf debate; in the end I have yet to see one
coherent or even responsive argument from supporters of Waldorf
education. I personally thank you and all PLANS members for this. I
hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and
today. Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal
experiences with Waldorf education and for various!
reasons those personal stories did not leap out at me in 1999. If
PLANS has made a conscious decision to project only a "political"
face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires to convey a more
personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception then perhaps
exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon:
You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided
to take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out
of the personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many
people don't want to share their personal stories or publish them on
the net, we've certainly asked people if they would be willing to
come forward, but most people don't want to--even I , who has blabbed
on about Waldorf for years all over the internet--don't tell some of
the really personal stuff because I want to protect my daughter's
privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the teachers etc. at
our ex-school. It's complicated.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens
many former parents including myself not because we think we are
slandering (which assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get
caught up in a public legal battle when we can barely keep up with
our personal lives. Perhaps if PLANS could give some professional
advice to former parents/teachers/students about the parameters of
slander and what exactly the risk is of placing personal stories
on-line, with bylines and/or anonymously this would help allay some
fears. Or are the fears warranted? I've heard that some parents
were threatened with legal action if they discussed their experiences
outside Waldorf.
Sharon:
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories,
and negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into
ideological, political and national concerns. In order to cause
change within Waldorf, we have to litigate, how else?
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand
(but perhaps not their heart or head). And I understand completely
why PLANS is suing. But the cost for this strategy is that somefolks
will think you have a specific agenda and will discount what is said
in this and other PLANS forums. The reward, if you win, is
priceless. :) As for a parallel strategy that would force more
accountability and honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site,
along with OpenWaldorf will make strides toward this same end.
People forget that the internet is still a relatively new phenomena,
it is mind boggling to think how much has changed in just a few short
years and how much more ubiquitous it has become. I believe due to
PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are much more informed
today than was the case just a couple of years ago. The other day I
was in a park with my kids and got into a conversation with a
complete stranger. I happened to mention that one of my !
children went to Waldorf and his response was "Oh, you mean that cult?".
Sharon:
What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was huge in scope!
The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their lives
(could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time,
commitment and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a
public stand. It isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount
of commitment and time, daily. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers
working our fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the
best we know how. A lot of thought went into the case, but we are
just " ordinary people who had an extraordinary Waldorf experience"
as Debra would say.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was
not intended. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's
solicitation simply reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me
the first time around. Unless it is critical to PLANS to have
Jefferson's and Steiner's picture on the site I don't think it adds
much to the arguments. I guess it also depends on what is the first
message you want to convey to visitors? Is it the lawsuit, or is it
the resources available at the site for assessing Waldorf? The
pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
We could use help in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At
the moment we are collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in
the classroom, which we will display on the PLANS site. This takes
*vast* amounts of time which we all give as volunteers. Perhaps you
have some lessons to contribute? If you have a personal story that
you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on our site that
people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to collect such
stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be
interested in assisting with this.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:49:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS (oscar001 earthlink.net) wrote:
)Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
) )journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and )information
)that led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to )understand
)anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and )Debra being the
)steadfast providers of a valuable resource and )incisive arguments to
)anyone curious about Waldorf education.
G'day NJS,
I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
fundamental to anthroposophy.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:00:55 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol wrote in response to me:
)){Peter] The position of most (but not all) materialists is that there ))is
))nothing after death. The materialist position may or may not be a
)) ))difficult idea to live with but that's not the point. The point is what
))makes more sense in the light of the ))evidence.
)
Percedol:
)There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's experience
)may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
Peter responds:
I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear evidence
for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
Anthroposophy.
I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty of
evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 981
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 11:38:22 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3129363502_825689_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 1:04 AM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol?
Sharon: Litigation is what causes change more than any other tool in this
country. PLANS case is important for many reasons, including 1) to cause
Waldorf to be open to parents about their esoteric mission, 2) to stop the
schools expanding using public monies and 3) to set a precedent for other
church state cases. I am not a lawyer, nor an official spokesperson for
PLANS, but this is how I see it. PLANS is anti-racism, (consequently anti
Steiner doctrine) but pro church and state separation. We want the State and
Waldorf to uphold the First Amendment. We admit that Jefferson was a racist
(most Anthroposophists won't admit that Steiner or his doctrine was/is
racist) but even though we would agree that Jefferson was a racist, we use
Jefferson as a symbol because of his contributions to establishing church
state separation / religious freedom in the early days of this country. What
he wrote still applies today in First Amendment cases. An important modern
precedent, Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) still
stands, it has not been struck down. In the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson
decision, forbidding New Jersey to spend state education funds for religious
education Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church
& State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1, 1802 letter to a group of Baptists in
Massachusetts .
Justice David Souter is a proponent of the First Amendment and upholds
church/state separation. In 2002, regarding Ohio's voucher program, Souter
said :
"...The applicability of the Establishment Clause to public funding of
benefits to religious schools was settled in Everson vs. Board of Education
of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), which inaugurated the modern era of
establishment doctrine. The Court stated the principle in words from which
there was no dissent:
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion".
The Court has never in so many words repudiated this statement, let alone,
in so many words, over ruled Everson." (Freethought Today, August 22002 p
11).
Sharon: The conservative court (Scalia et al) are trying to undermine this
ruling, but it still has not been struck down as Souter notes. Jefferson is
part of all this whether we like it or not. Our case *is* political.
Jeanine:
This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
Sharon: You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided to
take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out of the
personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many people don't want
to share their personal stories or publish them on the net, we've certainly
asked people if they would be willing to come forward, but most people don't
want to--even I , who has blabbed on about Waldorf for years all over the
internet--don't tell some of the really personal stuff because I want to
protect my daughter's privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the
teachers etc. at our ex-school. It's complicated. Waldorf still affects my
family and extended family to this day, years after leaving, and not just
because I decided to help PLANS, but I seldom talk about the very personal.
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories, and
negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into ideological,
political and national concerns. In order to cause change within Waldorf, we
have to litigate, how else? Dan tried to get his school to address Steiner's
racist work which was being sold at his school, and he was kicked out.
Eugene Schwartz tried to get Waldorf to be more open and he was fired. It
was because of Waldorf's move into the public sector that Dan and Debra took
the plunge and filed suit, realizing that the State has no business
advancing Anthroposophy. What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was
huge in scope! The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their
lives (could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time, commitment
and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a public stand. It
isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount of commitment and time,
daily. We aren't going to get anywhere without a legal ruling, hopefully in
our favor. PLANS bandies Jefferson around because the PLANS case is a First
Amendment issue, that is what it boils down to. It becomes a personal issue
when a private person sues Waldorf for consumer fraud. We are alleging First
Amendment violations because we believe that the public should not be
forced to advance Anthroposophy. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers working our
fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the best we know how. A
lot of thought went into the case, but we are just " ordinary people who had
an extraordinary Waldorf experience" as Debra would say. We could use help
in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At the moment we are
collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in the classroom, which we
will display on the PLANS site. This takes *vast* amounts of time which we
all give as volunteers. Perhaps you have some lessons to contribute? If you
have a personal story that you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on
our site that people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to
collect such stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
J: From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
Sharon: Because it is a matter of religion, in which Waldorf is free to
practice, the personal comes down to a church state separation issue, unless
a private individual would sue on grounds of consumer fraud. Some of us have
talked about a class action suit on these grounds, but nothing has come of
it yet. Extremely complex.
J:I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that the
PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in Waldorf
recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages?
Sharon: Yes, if people would come forward with their stories and someone
would volunteer to organize it. It would also be good if people would put
their name to their stories, but few people want to make that stand.
J: Does PLANS see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or
are both concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Sharon: I think both concerns are of equal weight, but the personal
translates to the bigger, more political, public cause. Our case is
political, we are suing two public Waldorf schools as citizens, for
violating the First Amendment. We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist and that the government has no
business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with tax
payer's money. The government has to be neutral when it comes to religion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 05:23:56 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
mysplum wrote:
We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
P:
And you have no problem with it!
Interesting.
) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
) try
) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P:
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
and that the government has no
) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
) tax
) payer's money.
P:
The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
different name taking the distance from it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:02:38 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/2/03 12:23 AM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Very interesting choice of words, Percedol...
"we will follow RS teachings"
"Following" indicates subservience. Interesting that you don't include
teachings of other legendary Anthroposophists who have expanded on Steiner's
original ideas (are there any?). And you don't frame Anthroposophy as a
philosphy that stands on its own, without frequently invoking Steiner.
Sounds like you are a religious follower to me, Percedol.
A religion by any other name...would still be a religion!
...Gary
"What?s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell
as sweet". Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet [1594-1595]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:15:27 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon wrote:
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P replied::
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Do we *once again* need to display Steiner's racist passages and disturbing
racial theories? P, *who* here has distorted *what* - exactly? Further -
how has anything been misinterpreted? You have made this accusation (above)
and we deserve an explanation. Please try.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:58:13 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C2E04E.6B34F9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS websiteSharon, let me start
by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my journey post
Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that led
me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and Debra being
the steadfast providers of a valuable resource and incisive arguments
to anyone curious about Waldorf education. Most importantly, it has
been a digital petrie dish for assessing the strengths and weaknesses
on both sides of the Waldorf debate; in the end I have yet to see one
coherent or even responsive argument from supporters of Waldorf
education. I personally thank you and all PLANS members for this. I
hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and
today. Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal
experiences with Waldorf education and for various!
reasons those personal stories did not leap out at me in 1999. If
PLANS has made a conscious decision to project only a "political"
face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires to convey a more
personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception then perhaps
exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon:
You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided
to take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out
of the personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many
people don't want to share their personal stories or publish them on
the net, we've certainly asked people if they would be willing to
come forward, but most people don't want to--even I , who has blabbed
on about Waldorf for years all over the internet--don't tell some of
the really personal stuff because I want to protect my daughter's
privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the teachers etc. at
our ex-school. It's complicated.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens
many former parents including myself not because we think we are
slandering (which assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get
caught up in a public legal battle when we can barely keep up with
our personal lives. Perhaps if PLANS could give some professional
advice to former parents/teachers/students about the parameters of
slander and what exactly the risk is of placing personal stories
on-line, with bylines and/or anonymously this would help allay some
fears. Or are the fears warranted? I've heard that some parents
were threatened with legal action if they discussed their experiences
outside Waldorf.
Sharon:
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories,
and negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into
ideological, political and national concerns. In order to cause
change within Waldorf, we have to litigate, how else?
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand
(but perhaps not their heart or head). And I understand completely
why PLANS is suing. But the cost for this strategy is that some
folks will think you have a specific agenda and will discount what is
said in this and other PLANS forums. The reward, if you win, is
priceless. :) As for a parallel strategy that would force more
accountability and honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site,
along with OpenWaldorf will make strides toward this same end.
People forget that the internet is still a relatively new phenomena,
it is mind boggling to think how much has changed in just a few short
years and how much more ubiquitous it has become. I believe due to
PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are much more informed
today than was the case just a couple of years ago. The other day I
was in a park with my kids and got into a conversation with a
complete stranger. I happened to mention that one of my !
children went to Waldorf and his response was "Oh, you mean that cult?".
Sharon:
What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was huge in scope!
The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their lives
(could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time,
commitment and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a
public stand. It isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount
of commitment and time, daily. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers
working our fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the
best we know how. A lot of thought went into the case, but we are
just " ordinary people who had an extraordinary Waldorf experience"
as Debra would say.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was
not intended. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's
solicitation simply reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me
the first time around. Unless it is critical to PLANS to have
Jefferson's and Steiner's picture on the site I don't think it adds
much to the arguments. I guess it also depends on what is the first
message you want to convey to visitors? Is it the lawsuit, or is it
the resources available at the site for assessing Waldorf? The
pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
We could use help in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At
the moment we are collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in
the classroom, which we will display on the PLANS site. This takes
*vast* amounts of time which we all give as volunteers. Perhaps you
have some lessons to contribute? If you have a personal story that
you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on our site that
people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to collect such
stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be
interested in assisting with this.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:49:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS (oscar001 earthlink.net) wrote:
)Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
) )journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and )information
)that led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to )understand
)anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and )Debra being the
)steadfast providers of a valuable resource and )incisive arguments to
)anyone curious about Waldorf education.
G'day NJS,
I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
fundamental to anthroposophy.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:00:55 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol wrote in response to me:
)){Peter] The position of most (but not all) materialists is that there ))is
))nothing after death. The materialist position may or may not be a
)) ))difficult idea to live with but that's not the point. The point is what
))makes more sense in the light of the ))evidence.
)
Percedol:
)There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's experience
)may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
Peter responds:
I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear evidence
for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
Anthroposophy.
I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty of
evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 981
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Pledge ruling stands
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Percedol!!!! Pssst!
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
"The task of education"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
To Chrystabel
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: To Chrystabel
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:13:27 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Pledge ruling stands
Sharon: On Friday the Appeals Court refused to reconsider their summer
ruling which declared the Pledge "unconstitutional" due to the words "under
God". The court ruled it violates the separation of church and state
mandated by the Constitution. Some legal experts speculate that some judges
voted against the case simply to hasten a Supreme Court review. Attorney
General Ashcroft announced :"The Justice Department will spare no effort to
preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American
flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism
through time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge." Judge
Reinhardt wrote: "Any suggestion, wherever made, that federal judges should
be encouraged by the approval of the majority or deterred by popular
disfavor is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and must be
firmly rejected." (In other words, the majority can't force the Pledge on
someone. Freedom of religion is a basic human right and it has nothing to do
with majority rule). The difference with the PLANS case is that Waldorf's
entire curriculum, pedagogy and "child development model"--better known by
Anthrioposophists as "The True nature of Man"--is based on a
religion--Anthroposophy. We aren't talking about a mere pledge or prayer,
(which Waldorf also has). I keep wondering what was Waldorf thinking when
they ignored Eugene Schwartz who warned them not to go into the public
sector?!
We'll see what the Supreme Court says about the Pledge. What I don't
understand is why they just don't go back to the pre 1954 version, and say
it the way it was written, using the word "indivisible" instead of "under
God." "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"...hey I
like that (G).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:23:45 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/1/03 9:23 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
)
)
) mysplum wrote:
) We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
)
) P:
) And you have no problem with it!
) Interesting.
Sharon: This is a stupid argument Percedol. Of course I think it was wrong
for Jefferson to own slaves. I think that all kinds of slavery is wrong,
including mental slavery of the Anthroposophical variety. As it happens, the
US Constitution mandated liberty and equality for **all**, consequently,
slaves were freed. Sure I'd agree that America has a long way to go when it
comes to racism, which is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about the
State not advancing and establishing an Aryan Supremacist Teutonic Mystery
school. (Waldorf).
)) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
)) try
)) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
)
) P:
) Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Sharon: Yes it is and no we don't! You are the ones who deny and destort.
)
)
) and that the government has no
)) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
)) tax
)) payer's money.
)
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Sharon: LOL! That's a classic Percedol!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:37:06 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Percedol!!!! Pssst!
Sharon: Percedol please answer me. Why do you edit my posts? Why do you
substitute the letters S and A for the words Steiner and Anthroposophy which
I write in full? It seems a bit rude to me, I mean, I don't go and edit
your spelling. I think I know why you do it but I want you to fess up and
stop doing it. I can write Anthroposophy and Steiner in full if I want to,
even if your religion doesn't permit it!
Vickers: "Words are treated as if they are equivalent to things and can be
substituted for them. Manipulate the one and you can manipulate the other.
Analogies, instead of being, as they are in the scientific tradition,
explanatory devices subordinate to argument and proof, or heuristic tools to
make models that can be tested, corrected, and abandoned if necessary, are,
instead, modes of conceiving relationships in the universe that reify,
rigidify, and ultimately come to dominate thought. One no longer uses
analogies: One is used by them. They become the only way in which one can
think or experience the world (p. 95 Vickers, Brian. Occult and Scientific
Mentalities in the Renaissance, 1984).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:17:24 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3129448644_815107_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 11:58 PM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that
led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy;
Sharon: PLANS helped me tremendously as well, which is why I decided to help
them. I really don't think Anthroposophists understand how it feels to try
to function in an Anthroposophic environment without esoteric knowledge. And
the hurt and sadness that one feels when one delves into Steiner's lectures
as you come to terms with what transpired. Emerging from Waldorf is a very
difficult experience and they need to get open so that people like us don't
have to suffer.
NJS: Most importantly, it has been a digital petrie dish for assessing the
strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the Waldorf debate;
Sharon: Yes, listening to the various arguments is a good way to sort
through your own beliefs and feelings. I listened in on WC for a long, long
time before I began to post. Time heals and with knowledge comes confidence.
Confusion slowly dissipates. Now, for example, when Percedol says things
like "A. is not a religion" I just want to howl! (G) Because I *know* it is.
Before, I used to believe them...sort of.
NJS: I hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and today.
Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal experiences
with Waldorf education and for various reasons those personal stories did
not leap out at me in 1999. If PLANS has made a conscious decision to
project only a "political" face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires
to convey a more personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception
then perhaps exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon: No there's no offense, you have brought up some very good points
which we should address. It does help to get feedback.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens many former
parents including myself not because we think we are slandering (which
assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get caught up in a public
legal battle when we can barely keep up with our personal lives. Perhaps if
PLANS could give some professional advice to former
parents/teachers/students about the parameters of slander and what exactly
the risk is of placing personal stories on-line, with bylines and/or
anonymously this would help allay some fears. Or are the fears warranted?
I've heard that some parents were threatened with legal action if they
discussed their experiences outside Waldorf.
Sharon: I think people should be cautious, some parents have been
threatened. A lawyer that deals in cultic studies told us that we *can*
publish our stories but of course, truth is the best defense against libel.
I think if the stories had names of people (like teachers) removed and names
of places and schools and children, then it would be ok, but I'm not an
expert and we would have to consult a lawyer for guidance. If all the
stories are anonymous, then we'll get asked why people won't put their names
to their testimonies which is why I think it's better to have people own
their stories. Then you have the difficulty of some people not wanting
others to know that they were involved in Waldorf...I mean...it could be
embarrassing on many fronts.
If you are serious about helping in this way, by gathering stories, editing
them etc. then perhaps PLANS could seek council as to how to approach this.
I suppose it's up to the board whether they want to do this (which I'm not
part of). Obviously we do want to help ex-Waldorfers...we understand what it
feels like to be duped because we were once uninformed-Waldorfers...so if
there are ways to improve the PLANS site we are all ears. I think Open
Waldorf is doing a wonderful job and fills in some of the gaps. I also think
their more "positive" approach is useful for people who are either
Anthroposophists or questioning-Waldorfers, not quite ready for a blatant
critique. Because PLANS is a supposed "anti cult org" we tend to be frowned
upon in this day and age, even though PLANS supports Waldorf's right to
exist, (but just not in the public sector). In the end I suppose you just
can't be all things to all men.
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand (but perhaps
not their heart or head). And I understand completely why PLANS is suing.
But the cost for this strategy is that some folks will think you have a
specific agenda and will discount what is said in this and other PLANS
forums. The reward, if you win, is priceless. :)
Sharon: Waldorfers are guided by their hearts and heads, they are *true
believers* and think they are above the law because they have the "truth" so
the results of the law suit will probably never change their hearts or
heads, even if PLANS wins. Some people love Waldorf, Anthroposophy, and want
to follow Steiner, and that is their right. People who discount what PLANS
is saying are people who don't really want to hear because they like or want
to like Waldorf...don't you think? They want to believe the false promises.
If you want to believe that Steiner's doctrine isn't racist, then you'll
hone in on the Jefferson picture on the PLANS site...know what I mean? I
don't feel it's PLANS role to prevent people from liking Waldorf if they
want to. But I do think we need stop Waldorf from expanding with public
monies and we can also help provide some answers for unsuspecting Waldorf
parents who are scratching their heads wondering "what is going on?" or
those thinking of going into Waldorf who would be out of place. We really
have no right to stop people being Anthroposophists or choosing private
Waldorf schools for their kids. . I mean...if people want to send their kids
to a mystery school, or a Mormon school, or a Christian school etc, they
should. So I don't see my role as trying to stop people from being believers
if they want to be, my role is just to provide arguments so that people can
figure things out for themselves. Plus I support the lawsuit goals. I also
think it's good to have orgs like PLANS that help people get out of
something they don't wish to support, or help prevent them from going into
something they wouldn't suit by providing information. I think PLANS'
specific agenda of getting Waldorf out of the public sector really is key, I
really see this as a first step to getting Waldorf to be more open about
their esoteric subtext.
J: As for a parallel strategy that would force more accountability and
honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site, along with OpenWaldorf will
make strides toward this same end. People forget that the internet is still
a relatively new phenomena, it is mind boggling to think how much has
changed in just a few short years and how much more ubiquitous it has
become. I believe due to PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are
much more informed today than was the case just a couple of years ago.
Sharon: Yes, the internet is an amazing place. I think we all are helping
each other. If you search Anthroposophy or Steiner you sure can find lots to
read (G) I would have gulped had I done that years ago, before choosing
Waldorf (G). The two "critical"Waldorf sites not only help parents, but
they are helping Waldorf get more open as well.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was not
intended.
Sharon: No, I value your input, I was just trying to reiterate that there
are just little ordinary people who are trying their best to cause necessary
change within Waldorf. I am merely "mommy the duped" doing the best she
knows how. It helps to hear people's responses, so thank-you.
J: All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's solicitation simply
reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me the first time around.
Sharon: Debra's solicitation is probably more useful for someone exiting
than someone going in, but she is as clear as a bell!! (Read below).
So....basically you ignored PLANS because their information didn't quite
grab you and consequently you had a bad Waldorf experience? You think PLANS
could be better with the way they present information so that people like
you would listen and avoid being duped? The Jefferson picture threw you off
so you didn't read Debra's opening lines or read the mission statement?
J: Unless it is critical to PLANS to have Jefferson's and Steiner's picture
on the site I don't think it adds much to the arguments. I guess it also
depends on what is the first message you want to convey to visitors? Is it
the lawsuit, or is it the resources available at the site for assessing
Waldorf? The pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
Sharon: Thanks for sharing that, I think it's something the PLANS board
should talk about. The mission statement supports both.
Maybe you would volunteer to collect such stories and organize a more
"personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be interested in
assisting with this.
Sharon: Great. Let's see what PLANS people think about your idea, which btw
is something we've already talked about many times before, so I'm sure they
will be open to doing this, especially if you are willing to take the time
to organize it and collect the stories. Thanks for your input.
Here's PLANS' mission:
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools will:
1. Provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf
education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner.
2. Expose the illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in
the US.
3. Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment in the US.
Here's Debra's opening lines, the first thing you read when you go to the
PLANS site....
Welcome! People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide
network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and
trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds with a common goal: to
educate the public about the reality behind Waldorf's facade of progressive,
arts-based education. Waldorf is the most visible activity of Anthroposophy,
an occultist sect founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).
Together, we have performed exhaustive research on Waldorf schools and
Anthroposophy, the esoteric, occult religion that both guides and inspires
Waldorf teachers. PLANS affirms the right of all religious groups to
practice and to teach their beliefs. But we expect those groups -- including
Anthroposophy -- to tell the truth about their missionary efforts.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:28:47 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: "The task of education"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_ItE//9XgKNw74M+tE31VlA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website Has anyone ever
found information like this (below) in any Waldorf brochures? Would
this type of honest information - Steiner's task of education - not
help prospective parents make an informed, conscious decision
regarding their family's participation in such schools? The entire
lecture is worth a read.
-Walden
From Study of Man Lecture One
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Education/19190821a01.html;mark=237,35,39#WN_mark
You will have to take over children for their education and
instruction - children who will have received already (as you must
remember) the education, or mis-education given them by their
parents. Indeed our intentions will only be fully accomplished when
we, as humanity, will have reached the stage where parents, too, will
understand that special tasks are set for mankind to-day, even for
the first years of the child's education. But when we receive the
children into the school we shall still be able to make up for many
things which have been done wrongly, or left undone, in the first
years of the child's life. For this we must fill ourselves with the
consciousness through which alone we can truly teach and educate. ...
...Now when the child has come forth on to the physical plane, we
must realise what has really happened for him in the transition from
a spiritual to a physical plane. Firstly, we must recognise that the
human being is really composed of two members. Before the human being
comes down to earth a union is entered into between the spirit and
the soul - meaning by spirit what for the physical world of to-day is
still entirely hidden, and what in Spiritual Science we call
Spirit-Man, Life-Spirit, Spirit-Self. These three members of man's
being are present in a certain way in the supersensible sphere to
which we must now work our way through. And between death and a new
birth we do already stand in a certain relationship to Spirit-Man,
Life-Spirit, Spirit-Self. Now the force which proceeds from this
trinity permeates the Soul element in man: Consciousness Soul,
Intellectual or Mind Soul, and Sentient Soul. And if you were to
observe the human being when, having passed through the e!
xistence between death and a new birth, he is just preparing to
descend into the physical world, then you would find the spiritual
which we have just described united with the soul. Man descends, as
it were, as Spirit-Soul or Soul-Spirit from a higher sphere into
earthly existence. He clothes himself with earthly existence. ...
...If you regard with an open mind the child who has found his way
into earthly life, you will observe that here in the child,
Soul-Spirit or Spirit-Soul is as yet dis-united from the Life-Body.
The task of education conceived in the spiritual sense is to bring
the Soul-Spirit into harmony with the Life-Body. They must come into
harmony with one another. They must be attuned to one another; for
when the child is born into the physical world, they do not as yet
fit one another. The task of the educator, and of the teacher too, is
the mutual attunement of these two members.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:30:29 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: To Chrystabel
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Chrystabel, you wrote,
)
) )Last night my husband and I looked through many posts on this site
) )and others. He agrees that communities of Anthros are dogmatic and,
) )sometimes, a bit crazed. But I think there are cultural and
) )philosophical differences that separate the German Anthros from
) )their American counterparts.
)
) Less than you think. It's funny the way American Waldorf teachers say
) they are enlightened and the German teachers are dogmatic, and the
) German Waldorf teachers say just the opposite.
)
) )...I wonder why the schools here hide their views. My husband said
) )that in Germany Waldorf school reall do try to be non-sectarian and
) )encourage separate religious instruction. The school in Hamburg had
) )separate classes for their various student body. If you were
) )Catholic you received Catholic instruction and support, Buddhist the
) )same, etc.
)
) This is in accordance with how it was done at the original Waldorf
) school. Religion instruction is traditional in German schools, and
) Waldorf follows that tradition. Most American schools omit religion
) classes.
)
) )So, my question is, what is this contention about Waldorf schools
) )not bein non-sectarian? Does mentioning a belief in higher powers
) )or deity automatically disqualify a school as sectarian?
)
) Waldorf is clearly sectarian because the methodology and the
) curriculum are based on the religious world-view of Anthroposophy, an
) occultist sect.
)
) )Does a school need to be agnostic or atheistic in doctrine and
) )teaching in order to be non-sectarian?
)
) Being agnostic or atheistic would be sectarian. Non-sectarian means
) neutral.
)
) )Would anthroposophists in US Waldorf schools try to circumvent my
) )own childrens religious education in their or would they support
) )their native beliefs?
)
) They will support the family's religion when relating to the parents,
) but they will undermine it in favor of Anthroposophy when they have
) the children alone. They justify this by their belief that
) Anthroposophy is a philosophy that embraces the whole truth about the
) relationship of humans to the spiritual world, whereas other
) religions only have fragments of it. Therefore to teach the children
) Anthroposophical ideas is, in their view, to complete their spiritual
) education or to correct their erroneous education.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Su here: I want to add to Dan's answer in somewhat broader terms.
Steiner came out of a culture of German Catholicism and Lutheranism,
with all its traditions and philosophical bent. It seems that it was and
is much easier to blend, and to "fit" the Anthroposophical philosophy
and religion into German society, because it is culturally tied in with
pre-existing institutions (religion taught in the schools, etc) and it
supports lots of the Germanic, "folk" or "Volk" traditions,trends in
pedagogy and cultural awareness.
Steiner was part of a late 19th century movement towards Germanic or
Germano-centric thinkers, that included people like Fichte,LaGarde,
Langbehn and Van den Bruck and others, who all had very similar
interests in promoting German culture, both ancient and modern. That's
why Steiner is well tolerated in Germany. He fit right in to a
pre-existing movement to elevate Germanic beliefs.
In the US, it's a different story. Anthroposophy here wants to gain its
authority by associating with the likes of Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau,
etc. so as to fit into American philosophy and thought. In many ways
they are attempting to appropriate an identity here that is not quite
real, though there is the thread of theosophy that is also present in
these thinkers that Anthroposophy is banking on.
It is in this way that they will try to legitimize their position in
American culture.
The problem is that American society and culture is much more dynamic
than German culture, and that's why the likes of Waldorf Critics has
sprung up in the USA and not in Germany. I imagine there has been some
resistance to Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Germany, but not in
the same way as here. The idea that the US is a heterogeneous society
is quite different from German tradition, which accepts diversity with
great societal pain and mistrust.
Anthroposophists "say" that they promote "diversity" and "art" and other
American tenets. However, their intent is to promote what they teach in
the schools, in a cloaked manner, so as not to arouse the awareness of
the laity of the *real* philosophy. It's kind of a Trojan Horse
mentality.
And it works, too, because people like you, Chrystabel, and your husband
who are tolerant and well-intentioned, and believe the outward trappings
of this philosophy will not see the undercurrent and the motive for the
school....Unless you dig as deeply as the researchers here and elsewhere
have done, and examine the actual negative effects that the schools and
the pedagogy have had on numerous individuals, both children and
families.
You may say, well that is a minority opinion, but in the Good 'Ole US of
A, we rule by both the majority and we *protect the minority* which may
be suffering, which is a totally different stance than that taken in the
Old World, where Majority rules fairly firmly. Of course this is
changing gradually all over the world, because multiculturalism is a
wave covering all continents, or it has been an historical phenomenon
that is comming into acceptance because humanity realizes that if we
don't we may not be able to maintain an intact planet...
Sorry for the rambling....
Waldorf teachers, Eurythmy teachers, and all of the different
functionaries in the school are promoting Steiner's sectarian doctrine,
*a priori* which means that though it is not *directly* spoken, it is
the basis upon which they build their pedagogy and their relationship to
the students and parents. So many a priori assumptions become reality,
when one believes them without questioning them. They are brought to
bear on the children by suggestion, by ritual, and by belief that these
ideas will eventually permeate the child's life in deeper ways. They are
promoted in all the ways that have been discussed:wet-on-wet art
meditations, prayers in the morning to the Sun, the Rainbow celebrations
of birthdays, the lazure pink-washed classrooms, the secret pedagogical
meetings where the children's etheric and astral bodies are discussed
along with their "temperaments".
The assumptions that are accepted as developmental doctrine, are
figments of Steiner's imagination.
This is the same way that Madison Avenue convinces you to buy certain
products or appreciate certain types of beauty or even how the
government promotes certain ideas and actions.
In other words, the soft sell, the assumption, and the a priori belief
that something will succeed, or that it is real, will then become
accepted belief, through action. The premise on which we base are
beliefs is the most powerful way to convince ourselves of the so-called
"truth" of something.
In modern psychology it is called acting "as if" something were already
true. It is also used by magicians, and palm-readers, and sooth-sayers,
and self-help gurus.
"As if" behavior *can* be very helpful in coping with verious challenges
in life, but should not be used to deceive. This is what critics of
Waldorf Education are working to expose; the deception.
Best, Su
************
[a pri?o?ri
(click to hear the word) (? pr-?r, -r, pr-?r, -r)
adj.
Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related
effect; deductive.
Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to
particular facts or experience.
Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.]
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:39:41 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
)
) "As if" behavior *can* be very helpful in coping with verious***
***Spelling error correction: Various instead of verious...
Also:
Please see the book The Politics of Cultural Despair; Study in the rise
of Germanic Ideology, by Fritz Stern, University of California Press,
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1961. (An excellent book...)
-Su
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:11:29 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C2E0B4.DAE3EA20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon: Debra's solicitation is probably more useful for someone
exiting than someone going in, but she is as clear as a bell!! (Read
below). So....basically you ignored PLANS because their information
didn't quite grab you and consequently you had a bad Waldorf
experience? You think PLANS could be better with the way they present
information so that people like you would listen and avoid being
duped? The Jefferson picture threw you off so you didn't read Debra's
opening lines or read the mission statement?
The Plans site was much different, as I recall, when we looked at it
in 1999. I don't think you or Debra were even part of PLANS yet? I
could be wrong but I simply recall Dan Dugan's name, reading the home
page about the lawsuit and getting the impression it was created by
civil libertarian activists. This tainted the information for me that
would come from PLANS so I looked for 3rd party sources.
When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual
biases about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for
helping me determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come
from AWSNA or PLANS, but from other parents like me. Post Waldorf
when I was trying to understand anthroposophy and our experience the
best sources were the most well-read, and that included you and both
Peters, as well as my own research into Steiner's writing. The depth
of the knowledge all of you conveyed shamed most anthroposophists!
And the coherence in those views and your willingness to engage in
the debate juxtaposed against supporters who shut down discussion at
SJU, and ran into the ether when asked to explain their positions in
this forum, convinced me of the profound weaknesses in athroposophy
and deception in Waldorf education.
As a prospective parent I was looking specifically for former parents
and their experiences, and not seeing any, I moved on. I also recall
that the site was much, much smaller and did not have the number of
resources, links, and 3rd party perspectives that it has today. Today
when you look at Plans it is clear there are former parents involved
and parent testimonials are easier to find. In 1999 I only recall
Dan Dugan's name and I didn't leave with the impression that former
parents were part of the site and it's mission. This sort of quick
scanning is typical of users on the internet, by the way. There is
so much information that we must wade through day to day to find what
is relevant and credible. The home page of any site is key for
capturing your audience. So, if PLANS wishes to convey the 3 concepts
in your mission statement on the homepage in the order in which they
are listed, then the homepage should reflect this as well.
Currently, it seems to promote items 2 a!
nd 3 in your list (the lawsuit) most prominently.
I don't believe Debra's statement was on the site when I viewed it in
1999. Let me also say that my "missing the boat" at that time is in
no way a reflection of Dan and his efforts, but perhaps a confluence
of my specific needs and the site's layout. He opened our eyes and
we all owe him our gratitude and admiration. It's hard to be the
lone voice but he no longer is, and his courage brought other
disaffected parents out of the woodwork. Thank you Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:34:48 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) G'day NJS,
) I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
) just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
) ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
) fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
) one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
) fundamental to anthroposophy.
) See you, Peter
I know Peter that you and Peter S. are not technically part of PLANS, but
your contributions have been so valuable that I needed to mention your name,
hope you don't mind. I think having the academic acumen both of you provide
draws in those of us who are too much "in our head". Your perspectives have
helped me over the past year, thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:00:12 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual biases
about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for helping me
determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come from AWSNA or
PLANS, but from other parents like me. Post Waldorf when I was trying to
understand anthroposophy and our experience the best sources were the most
well-read, and that included you and both Peters, as well as my own research
into Steiner's writing. The depth of the knowledge all of you conveyed
shamed most anthroposophists! And the coherence in those views and your
willingness to engage in the debate juxtaposed against supporters who shut
down discussion at SJU, and ran into the ether when asked to explain their
positions in this forum, convinced me of the profound weaknesses in
athroposophy and deception in Waldorf education.
Peter responds:
While I can't claim any great knowledge of Anthroposophy (I don't have
anything like Sharon's or Peter S's or Dan's patience to wade through that
much gibberish), I wonder about the Anthroposophical knowledge of the DOFs
who have appeared on this list. Is it that we just haven't had any serious
Anthroposophists on this list? Are there some out there who could make
reasoned arguments based on evidence that would at least temper some of the
critics views? It may be th