return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf parent/teacher dissertation
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf parent/teacher dissertation
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: Waldorf parent/teacher dissertation
By pkcompany netzero.net
Can some good come?
By fiona_study yahoo.co.uk
RE: Can some good come?
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Can some good come?
By fiona_study yahoo.co.uk
RE: Can some good come?
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:04:17 -0700
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
Subject: Waldorf parent/teacher dissertation
This was posted recently by Aurora at OpenWaldorf. I haven't read it yet (it's a 62 page PDF file), but I thought it might be interesting to people here.
Nicole
Aurora wrote:
Thesis on Parent-Teacher Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found this link posted on another group. It is a thesis from a student at a Waldorf college regarding the parent-teacher relationships at Waldorf schools (and how to improve such relationships). It is very enlightening reading. I am sure everyone here would be interested in it so I am posting the URL:
www.waldorflibrary.org/dissertations.htm
Once there click on the title of the dissertation and the PDF file will download.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:24:17 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf parent/teacher dissertation
Fascinating -- thanks Nicole!
First red flag is on page 2...
) My heartfelt thanks to my friends and colleagues who wish to
) remain anonymous but who informally supported my efforts and
) in many numerous ways helped to contribute to this paper.
) They include teachers, board members, committee leaders and
) committee members, mentors, professors, administrators,
) professionals, financial staff and moms and dads like you and
) I who are passionate about the education of our children.
I wonder why they all wish to remain "anonymous" and "informal"?
...Gary
on 6/30/04 2:04 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss2004 hotmail.com wrote:
) This was posted recently by Aurora at OpenWaldorf. I haven't read it yet (it's
) a 62 page PDF file), but I thought it might be interesting to people here.
)
) Nicole
)
) Aurora wrote:
)
) Thesis on Parent-Teacher Relations
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
) --
)
) I found this link posted on another group. It is a thesis from a student at a
) Waldorf college regarding the parent-teacher relationships at Waldorf schools
) (and how to improve such relationships). It is very enlightening reading. I am
) sure everyone here would be interested in it so I am posting the URL:
) www.waldorflibrary.org/dissertations.htm
)
) Once there click on the title of the dissertation and the PDF file will
) download.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:38:04 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf parent/teacher dissertation
Nicole Foss wrote:
)
)
) This was posted recently by Aurora at OpenWaldorf. I haven't read it yet
) (it's a 62 page PDF file), but I thought it might be interesting to
) people here.
)
) Nicole
Thanks Nicole - Great paper!!! I'm going to nail a copy on the front
door of my kid's school!
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:53:05 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fiona=20Steiner?= (fiona_study yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Can some good come?
Hello to all!
Fiona here. I discovered WC 2 weeks ago and developed an instant addiction. A few sleepless nights have been spent following links around the World Wide Web. Last night being one of them, so please excuse any typos or sleep deprived ramblings. I will try to stay focused.
I am interested in WC because next year Feb 05, i am planning to study at Parsifal, A Steiner teacher training college in Sydney. This discussion group has already given me valuable insight into some of the dangers associated with the road i am about to go down and for that i cannot thank you enough. The time and energy which has gone into laying out such clear, concise and well researched arguments is truly incredible. Now, my knowledge of "Steiner quotes" is base ignorance compared to the research you have all put in. I was familiar with his theory on soul evolution and in all honesty i got something completely different out of it. (If you would like to see the *beauty* of Steiner's creation story may i suggest *The Silmarillion*, by JRR Tolkien) Your different perspective has been fantastic and much needed. If you don't mind, I would like to continue to get your feedback on the various things that come up during the teacher training. Because unlike Dan who, regarding "An
interesting article" wrote:
( I don't think that gap can be healed; it's another "culture war" and it's dealing with radically opposite epistemologies.)
I believe both sides can come together to find a mutually beneficial way forward. BTW Dan also wrote:
( Yes some people can believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast" )
I will admit right here that i am one of those people. Dan, I believe in *everything*. More on that later.
For my part I would like to put in my two bobs worth here and there, to give you my perspective on things. I do not want to get into arguing points. I am not particularly interested in whether Steiner was a racist or not. Or whether there really are faeries at the bottom of a Waldorf garden.
What I am interested in is finding a better way to educate children. From what i have read here attending these schools has for varied reasons had unpleasant to devastating effects on students and their families. I have also heard the other side from many people which can be summed up by quoting one friend...
" I have known a few people who have been to Steiner schools. They loved it. And they are some of the most imaginative and creative people i have ever met."
So what to believe? Well, *everything* of course. The challenge is how to use these beliefs for a practical purpose. What makes these schools a dream for some and a complete nightmare for others? What works and what needs reform? And in light of the PLANS agenda; can these schools be run in a secular manner?
I am gathering that most people here have had contact with Steiner / Anthroposophy through the schools. From that i would gather that you were in some way dissatisfied with the mainstream education. Well me too. I have 6 nieces and nephews and there education, to me, is terrifying. I love these children and they are being either bored to death in the classroom by teachers who just don't care and are themselves products of a dull schooling system. Or they are being pushed to achieve, requiring tutors at the age of 4 or have workloads that are simply ridiculous for a child.
On WC it seems that a lot of murky bath water has been thrown out but now, "Where's the baby?" If you do manage to get state funding pulled from Waldorf schools (are you trying to get it pulled from ALL schools?) will children be better off for the schooling options? Montessori is a brilliant system of education, but it is not for all. It does not engender in children a sense of being able to create a new world. I believe Steiner's philosophy has something to offer in this regard. What of his philosophy is of use and what needs to be incorporated is what i aim to discover.
I am hoping that you will help me with your ideas, opinions, research and honesty.
Thanks you Nicole for the dissertation link, I will have a read once i am done reading a 370pg thesis on teacher training in Steiner education in Australia.
So that is my purpose. If you would be so kind as to indulge me for a wee bit more i would like to give you a bit of back ground to my thinking. Hopefully it will give you an understanding of where i am coming from and people wont take my comments in the wrong way.
I believe in *everything*. It has never a been a problem for me to reconcile science and religion. They a simply different ways of looking at the same things. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? And quite frankly who cares? Science has cured people of diseases, as has faith, herbs and the pure power of the mind, take the placebo effect. Who is going to tell any of these healed people that they are "still sick, just too stupid to realise it"?
I met a guy who was 22 and has to take medicine everyday of his life. He wants more than anything to not take the medicine. But does not believe that there is another way. His parents are both scientist and he is all too aware of the placebo effect as he had seen many of his parents patients cured taking the dummy drugs. I met him in the Kashmir Himalayas where there are holy people everywhere. And naturally people coming to seek there help and healing. As far as he was concerned the placebo effect was *proof* that these people would not be healed. To me it was proof that they could be.
"Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha said "With our thoughts we make the world" {Opening lines of 70's *cult* TV show "Monkey"}
Let's her it for Buddha! How right was he!?! Everyone makes up their own *reality* and one person's *reality* may not resemble another's in the slightest. I am sure we all agree that no-one has the right to dictate what someone else should think. From that basis...
all *realities* must be accepted, if not agreed upon. If these *realities* are creations of thought then we need to go beyond thought to see what is the underlying essence. To do this people choose faith, science, meditation, nature or even thought itself. The path you choose will be largely dependant on the *reality* you have already created for yourself.
I spent high school arguing with everyone. My dad thought i was being brainwashed by socialist while my leftist teachers and fellow students seem to brand me as one of the right wing country rednecks. But all that arguing helped me develop quite strong informal debating skills. Thanks to these skills I spent a long time winning arguments but learning nothing. No one could tell me anything because i could always *prove* that i was right and they were wrong.
Now i listen instead. There is at least a little truth in everything. The skill is not to prove why someone is wrong but to find the truth in what they say. It gives me a better insight into people, a different perspective on life. With this new perspective i can understand them a little better, making it easier to accept them and love them honestly. To me who is right and wrong is inconsequential. Especially as the more i listen the more i hear that everyone is saying the same thing.
Or to put it another way...
Depending on a persons natural abilities, environment, education etc, their ability to present a clear valid deductive argument is going to differ considerably. Yet a sceptic would ask them to play *their* game and if the challenger can't compete then the sceptic seems happy to take the victory without even acknowledging their advantage of having trained.
As the world is, some people are never going to have the opportunity to develop such critical thinking. So some unfortunates are never going to have the chance to understand what's really going on and to clear away the rubbish. Does fairness come into scepticism? Because it would seem that some people are clearly at a disadvantage if there is no *Truth* in faith. Especially those who are holding onto faith just to get them through the day. So what makes the sceptics so special that they are given the chance to *understand* while others are blinded by superstition and do not *see*? I guess we'll just call them *lucky ones*. The terms *chosen* or *initiates* don't seem appropriate. But from where i'm listening, it all sounds the same to me.
Thanks for sticking around to the end of that rant!
Look forward to hearing from you,
Fiona
ps just for a laugh...
(is this allowed? laughing that is. it is related and i figure if quotes from 1984 were in, this would be as well. also your honour, this is all relevant as you will see in my coming response to peter S's last posting about anti-semitism. i will be attempting to put steiner in a different context for which this is the ground work. well maybe not the babel fish exactly but, oh i'll be quiet now. till next time!)
The Origin of the Babel Fish
written by Douglas Adams
The Book: The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:47:58 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
G'day Fiona,
welcome aboard. Thanks for the lengthy post. I'd like to pull out a couple
of things you wrote so that you begin to have some idea where I am coming
from.
You wrote:
"Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?"
The scientific approach is that it comes from near consensus, from argument,
logic and the result of experiment designed to test the question. The
reality is that sometimes you can say who is right and who is wrong. Or
perhaps, who is more right and who is more wrong.
"And quite frankly who cares?"
In a lot of circumstances it matters. You raised placebo as an example.
There are many supposed remedies such as those you have listed which work
only as well as placebo. If you want something better then it does matter.
If you would like to take advantage of the placebo effect (if this is
possible) then you are going to have to understand it, and that means that
in that process you are going to find hypotheses that are wrong and you are
going to have to accept them as wrong. It's tough when they are your own
hypotheses.
)
)I met a guy who was 22 and has to take medicine everyday of his life. He
)wants more than anything to not take the medicine. But does not believe
)that there is another way. His parents are both scientist and he is all too
)aware of the placebo effect as he had seen many of his parents patients
)cured taking the dummy drugs. I met him in the Kashmir Himalayas where
)there are holy people everywhere. And naturally people coming to seek there
)help and healing. As far as he was concerned the placebo effect was *proof*
)that these people would not be healed. To me it was proof that they could
)be.
And he is right and you are wrong. They might get better independently of
the holy people but not because.
)
)"Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha said "With our thoughts we make the
)world" {Opening lines of 70's *cult* TV show "Monkey"}
Wonderful show. Book is great too.
)
)Let's her it for Buddha! How right was he!?! Everyone makes up their own
)*reality* and one person's *reality* may not resemble another's in the
)slightest. I am sure we all agree that no-one has the right to dictate what
)someone else should think. From that basis...
)
)all *realities* must be accepted, if not agreed upon.
OK. The consequences of this argument is that you accept the thoughts and
hence the actions of the Klu Klux Klan as valid. Some people are just
wrong. Some ideas are bad and have bad consequences and should be argued
against. I believe that this relativism that you are preaching is a bad
idea.
)
)I spent high school arguing with everyone. My dad thought i was being
)brainwashed by socialist while my leftist teachers and fellow students seem
)to brand me as one of the right wing country rednecks. But all that arguing
)helped me develop quite strong informal debating skills. Thanks to these
)skills I spent a long time winning arguments but learning nothing. No one
)could tell me anything because i could always *prove* that i was right and
)they were wrong.
)Now i listen instead. There is at least a little truth in everything. The
)skill is not to prove why someone is wrong but to find the truth in what
)they say. It gives me a better insight into people, a different perspective
)on life. With this new perspective i can understand them a little better,
)making it easier to accept them and love them honestly. To me who is right
)and wrong is inconsequential. Especially as the more i listen the more i
)hear that everyone is saying the same thing.
)
)Or to put it another way...
)
)Depending on a persons natural abilities, environment, education etc, their
)ability to present a clear valid deductive argument is going to differ
)considerably. Yet a sceptic would ask them to play *their* game and if the
)challenger can't compete then the sceptic seems happy to take the victory
)without even acknowledging their advantage of having trained.
You seem to think that the argument is a game. It's not. In many
circumastances the outcome matters. If that means that the outcome is
decided by people who understand the problem and possible solutions and can
be articulate about it all the better.
Let me bring this back to Waldorf. If Steiner's philosophy is wrong and
harmful, and it is propogated through Waldorf schools, then Waldorf schools
are harmful. This is a simple argument. I recognise that the premises are
not accepted by everyone, and even the degree of harm that is propogated
might be outweighed by some good. Is this argument worth examining? I think
it is. It is clear that in this process the ideas and beliefs of many people
(including me) will be questioned and examined and judged. I find it
interesting that both of those theses that Nicole pointed us too do not
question the value of Waldorf. That is a given. Here the value is questioned
as well.
)
)As the world is, some people are never going to have the opportunity to
)develop such critical thinking. So some unfortunates are never going to
)have the chance to understand what's really going on and to clear away the
)rubbish. Does fairness come into scepticism? Because it would seem that
)some people are clearly at a disadvantage if there is no *Truth* in faith.
)Especially those who are holding onto faith just to get them through the
)day. So what makes the sceptics so special that they are given the chance
)to *understand* while others are blinded by superstition and do not *see*?
)I guess we'll just call them *lucky ones*. The terms *chosen* or
)*initiates* don't seem appropriate. But from where i'm listening, it all
)sounds the same to me.
Let's fix the world so that these people get that opportunity to develop
critical thinking. If people are holding onto faith to get them through the
day, let's fix the world so that they don't need to. That seems to me to be
a better solution than to have them believing things that can be
demonstrated to be incorrect.
)
)Thanks for sticking around to the end of that rant!
)Look forward to hearing from you,
)Fiona
Thank you for contributing.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get a Credit Card - 60 sec online response:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;8097459;9106288;b?http://www.anz.com/aus/promo/qantas5000ninemsn
[AU only]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:39:38 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fiona=20Steiner?= (fiona_study yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
Hi Peter,
I think i understand the approach better. Thanks.
Fiona wrote:
"Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?"
The scientific approach is that it comes from near consensus, from argument, logic and the result of experiment designed to test the question. The reality is that sometimes you can say who is right and who is wrong. Or perhaps, who is more right and who is more wrong.
Thanks Peter, I have to admit, i had to look up sceptic in the dictionary to get an understand of it. But i need more help, If science is continually updating itself and new theories take the place of old truths in the light of new discoveries, how do you know the difference between fact and just popular consensus?
And naturally people coming to seek there
)help and healing. As far as he was concerned the placebo effect was *proof*
)that these people would not be healed. To me it was proof that they could
)be.
And he is right and you are wrong. They might get better independently of the holy people but not because.
Sorry don't get it. You cannot take their faith out of the equation. It may not be the holy people healing them with special powers but without the belief in healing they would not be healed.
)Fiona wrote:
)Let's her it for Buddha! How right was he!?! Everyone makes up their own
)*reality* and one person's *reality* may not resemble another's in the
)slightest. I am sure we all agree that no-one has the right to dictate what someone else should think. From that basis... all *realities* must be accepted, if not agreed upon.
Peter wrote: OK. The consequences of this argument is that you accept the thoughts and hence the actions of the Klu Klux Klan as valid. Some people are just wrong. Some ideas are bad and have bad consequences and should be argued against. I believe that this relativism that you are preaching is a bad idea.
This is a mess of words. Right and wrong i was using to imply real and not real. I don't think you can argue a point effectively until you have accepted their view on reality. You don't have to agree with them just understand them, otherwise you may win the argument but have you changed their opinion?
Is it right in saying that rational arguments leave emotions out?
Fiona wrote:
Yet a sceptic would ask them to play *their* game and if the
)challenger can't compete then the sceptic seems happy to take the victory without even acknowledging their advantage of having trained.
Peter wrote:
You seem to think that the argument is a game.
Just an analogy. I think an argument has little value when the sides are uneven and people are coming to the argument to prove they are right instead of trying to understand the human being in front of them.
Peter Wrote:
It's not. In many circumstances the outcome matters. If that means that the outcome is decided by people who understand the problem and possible solutions and can be articulate about it all the better.
Exactly and to understand a problem fully i think other peoples' *realities* need to be considered. How can you ignore the way other people see the world and still believe you have an all encompassing solution?
Peter wrote:
Let me bring this back to Waldorf. If Steiner's philosophy is wrong and harmful, and it is propogated through Waldorf schools, then Waldorf schools are harmful. This is a simple argument. I recognise that the premises are not accepted by everyone, and even the degree of harm that is propogated
might be outweighed by some good. Is this argument worth examining? I think it is.
Groovy, this is what i want to find out. Is the general consensus around here that; Steiner education is fundamentally flawed and harmful because of its belief in the soul? Or is it argued piece by piece?
I find it interesting that both of those theses that Nicole pointed us too do not question the value of Waldorf. That is a given. Here the value is questioned as well.
I hope so. To be honest most of what i have seen on the site seems to be based around proving whether Steiner was an anti-semite. I have not been able to find much analysing the teaching methods. If anyone can point me to old lists that talk about steiner pedagogy etc it wold be appreciated. I tried doing searches but i always end up off on a tangent.
Fiona wrote:
Does fairness come into scepticism? Because it would seem that some people are clearly at a disadvantage if there is no *Truth* in faith.
Peter wrote:
Let's fix the world so that these people get that opportunity to develop critical thinking. If people are holding onto faith to get them through the day, let's fix the world so that they don't need to. That seems to me to be a better solution than to have them believing things that can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
That's not a solution that's an ideal. A better world where everyone is a sceptic. Where is the starting point for this better world? Especially as so many charities and organisations who are the front line in giving aid and education are faith based.
Take care out there,
Fiona
_________________________________________________________________
Get a Credit Card - 60 sec online response:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;8097459;9106288;b?http://www.anz.com/aus/promo/qantas5000ninemsn
[AU only]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a FREE Mortgage Quote from Mortgage War. Simple application
for mortgage information. If you're ready to get a quote click
now!
http://click.topica.com/caacneLb1dkiGb7QT1Uf/411Web
------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:38:47 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
G'day Fiona
)
)Hi Peter,
)I think i understand the approach better. Thanks.
)
)
)Fiona wrote:
)"Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?"
)The scientific approach is that it comes from near consensus, from
)argument, logic and the result of experiment designed to test the question.
)The reality is that sometimes you can say who is right and who is wrong. Or
)perhaps, who is more right and who is more wrong.
)
)
)Thanks Peter, I have to admit, i had to look up sceptic in the dictionary
)to get an understand of it. But i need more help, If science is continually
)updating itself and new theories take the place of old truths in the light
)of new discoveries, how do you know the difference between fact and just
)popular consensus?
)
The short answer is you have to make judgements. As part of a longer answer,
there are large parts of science which have been very robust to this
renewal. If you have some claim, and that claim is contradicted by some well
accepted science, the claim ought to be supported by evidence which is in
some sense equivalent to that which supports the scientific evidence, before
you decide to reject the accepted view. I understand it is difficult to
determine from the outside how much evidence supports some of these
scientific views. Let me try an example to make things clear. One of my bug
bears is homoeopathy. I think this is a load of nonsense, and the sooner we
forget about it the better off we all will be. The problem is that if
homoeopathy is correct, virtually no part of modern chemistry can be
correct. Modern chemistry relies on the existence of atoms, and on the
theories of how these atoms interact and so on. Homoeopathy claims that
water with a small proabability of having any atoms of the so called active
ingredient in it, behaves differently from water which wasn't prepared to
have a small probability of having any of those atoms in it. If this were
true, and it isn't, then the idea that one could do chemical experiments
with purified water would be a nonsense. But of course we can, and people
do. Not only that but well designed tests of homoeopathy do not demonstrate
anything like the claimed effectiveness. And yet we still have a gigantic
industry associated with this which in my view is a dangerous waste of human
endeavour.
)
)
)And naturally people coming to seek there
) )help and healing. As far as he was concerned the placebo effect was
)*proof*
) )that these people would not be healed. To me it was proof that they could
) )be.
)
)And he is right and you are wrong. They might get better independently of
)the holy people but not because.
)
)
)Sorry don't get it. You cannot take their faith out of the equation. It may
)not be the holy people healing them with special powers but without the
)belief in healing they would not be healed.
)
That's the whole point. If I convinced you that I had a sacred paper clip
with healing properties, the healing would take place just as well. I would
still be a fraud despite the fact you were healed. There are two problems.
The first is that the placebo effect is not controllable (at least at the
moment), and the second is that it is not very efficacious. If you are
relying on placebo to cure a fatal disease, the chances are you are going to
die. That's not good enough for me. I want remedies for diseases to have a
good chance of a cure or of mitigating the symptoms.
)
)
) )Fiona wrote:
) )Let's her it for Buddha! How right was he!?! Everyone makes up their own
) )*reality* and one person's *reality* may not resemble another's in the
) )slightest. I am sure we all agree that no-one has the right to dictate
)what someone else should think. From that basis... all *realities* must be
)accepted, if not agreed upon.
)
)Peter wrote: OK. The consequences of this argument is that you accept the
)thoughts and hence the actions of the Klu Klux Klan as valid. Some people
)are just wrong. Some ideas are bad and have bad consequences and should be
)argued against. I believe that this relativism that you are preaching is a
)bad idea.
)
)
)This is a mess of words. Right and wrong i was using to imply real and not
)real. I don't think you can argue a point effectively until you have
)accepted their view on reality. You don't have to agree with them just
)understand them, otherwise you may win the argument but have you changed
)their opinion?
With some of them you just have to put them in jail!
I am sure we disagree about many things. I am also sure that we can find
many things to agree about. Perhaps we will take part in a long conversation
about some of these things. During that I would hope that I come to
understand your view better, and perhaps change your mind about a point of
disagreement (or perhaps you will change mine). How can either of us change
our minds if the argument is unsound? But I agree that we must both
understand it.
)
)Is it right in saying that rational arguments leave emotions out?
You don't think that I feel emotional about the dangers of homoeopathy? You
don't think I get excited and joyous about scientific results and coming to
understanding based on rational argument?
)
)
)
)Fiona wrote:
)Yet a sceptic would ask them to play *their* game and if the
) )challenger can't compete then the sceptic seems happy to take the victory
)without even acknowledging their advantage of having trained.
)Peter wrote:
)You seem to think that the argument is a game.
)
)Just an analogy. I think an argument has little value when the sides are
)uneven and people are coming to the argument to prove they are right
)instead of trying to understand the human being in front of them.
This seems to me to be a false dichotomy. You can't "win" an argument
without some understanding of the person with whom you are arguing.
)
)
)
)Peter Wrote:
)
)It's not. In many circumstances the outcome matters. If that means that the
)outcome is decided by people who understand the problem and possible
)solutions and can be articulate about it all the better.
)
)Exactly and to understand a problem fully i think other peoples'
)*realities* need to be considered. How can you ignore the way other people
)see the world and still believe you have an all encompassing solution?
)
I don't think I have an all encompassing solution to anything. Yes other
peoples' realities need to be considered not because those realities are
real, but because those people will react to whatever is happening on the
basis of those "realities".
)
)
)
)Peter wrote:
)
)Let me bring this back to Waldorf. If Steiner's philosophy is wrong and
)harmful, and it is propogated through Waldorf schools, then Waldorf schools
)are harmful. This is a simple argument. I recognise that the premises are
)not accepted by everyone, and even the degree of harm that is propogated
)might be outweighed by some good. Is this argument worth examining? I think
)it is.
)
)Groovy, this is what i want to find out. Is the general consensus around
)here that; Steiner education is fundamentally flawed and harmful because of
)its belief in the soul? Or is it argued piece by piece?
)
There are multiple views here. I don't think anyone has said that Steiner
education is fundamentally flawed and harmful because of its belief in the
soul. It is argued piece by piece. Some people stick to the education.
Others are more interested in Steiner's broader philosophy, or at least some
aspects of it.
)
)
)I find it interesting that both of those theses that Nicole pointed us too
)do not question the value of Waldorf. That is a given. Here the value is
)questioned as well.
)
)
)I hope so. To be honest most of what i have seen on the site seems to be
)based around proving whether Steiner was an anti-semite. I have not been
)able to find much analysing the teaching methods. If anyone can point me to
)old lists that talk about steiner pedagogy etc it wold be appreciated. I
)tried doing searches but i always end up off on a tangent.
Actually I think the argument has been around proving or disproving Steiner
was an antisemite. This is a regular topic here. Just recently it has
dominated discussion, but it is not always so. We often end up off on a
tangent as well. :)
)
)
)
) Fiona wrote:
)
)Does fairness come into scepticism? Because it would seem that some people
)are clearly at a disadvantage if there is no *Truth* in faith.
)
)
)Peter wrote:
)Let's fix the world so that these people get that opportunity to develop
)critical thinking. If people are holding onto faith to get them through the
)day, let's fix the world so that they don't need to. That seems to me to be
)a better solution than to have them believing things that can be
)demonstrated to be incorrect.
)
)
)That's not a solution that's an ideal. A better world where everyone is a
)sceptic. Where is the starting point for this better world? Especially as
)so many charities and organisations who are the front line in giving aid
)and education are faith based.
)
I'm not sure that faith will disappear with an iincrease in critical
thinking. I guess it is also true that many of the organisations which
create the greatest suffering in the world have components of faith as well.
I don't know where there is a starting point that I can recommend to anyone
else (especially before I understand her). I guess with teaching. There's a
good place to start.
What's good about Waldorf?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Open an Online Savings Account today & collect a bonus $30*!
http://clk.atdmt.com/1DG/go/hsb005000991dg/direct/01/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1392
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Can some good come?
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
Re: Can some good come?
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
Re: Can some good come?
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
happy birthday, PLANS!
By dan dandugan.com
how Waldorf critics are made
By dan dandugan.com
link to another story about the Streatham fire
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Can some good come?
By fiona_study yahoo.co.uk
RE: how Waldorf critics are made
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Can some good come?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Can some good come?
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:35:08 -0700
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Can some good come?
Peter wrote: I find it interesting that both of those theses that Nicole pointed us too do not question the value of Waldorf. That is a given. Here the value is questioned
as well.
Nicole: I expected that to be the case, given that they were written by students at a Waldorf college. Rudolf Steiner seems to be a not-to-be-challenged authority in such institutions, so I find it hard to imagine any student who attempted to critique Steiner lasting very long. It's interesting that even for a non-critical piece, the individuals who spoke to the author about parent-teacher interactions wished to remain anonymous. There's just so much secrecy in the Waldorf world.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:41:37 -0700
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Can some good come?
Fiona,
I suggest you read this account by Dr David Mollet, an academic with a lifelong interest in Waldorf education:
http://members.aol.com/WaldorfEdu/experiences.html
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:51:11 -0700
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Can some good come?
Here's another interesting link posted at OpenWaldorf:
http://members.aol.com/kitmac/workon.htm
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:01:12 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: happy birthday, PLANS!
Today is the seventh anniversary of the incorporation of PLANS.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:46:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: how Waldorf critics are made
The following open letter was posted to a discussion board at
OpenWaldorf. The original is at:
http://p087.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm20.showMessageRange?topicID=54.topic&start=61&stop=61
-Dan Dugan
***
Dear Highland Hall College of Teachers,
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 24, 2005 (I assume you
meant 2004). Your indictment of me begins with the statement "The
College of Highland Hall Waldorf School has decided that the school
cannot re-enroll Alicia for the 2004-2005 school year. This decision
was made not because of Alicia's behavior, but because of your
behavior toward the class teacher and the school as a whole. The
College sees that the class needs a space to heal after the past
difficult year."
First, let me make it clear that I am proud of my behavior and of my
integrity. Many parents and former parents have written and called me
to thank me for my part in exposing the class teacher and for taking
the heat from the school. One former parent expressed that only now
that the teacher is no longer at Highland Hall, her child has felt
the necessary closure required for healing. But before we go any
further, could I please inquire what my behavior was toward Alicia's
class teacher that you found offensive? I always treated her respect,
conducted myself properly in my meetings with her, never raised my
voice even when frustrated and angry. I even helped her carry boxes
from her car while discussing my concerns with her about her
inappropriate conversations with my daughter. My behavior toward her
was absolutely respectful. Meanwhile, behind my back, the same class
teacher specifically told my daughter to keep secrets from me, told
Alicia that she wanted to adopt her and according to Alicia's mother,
conspired with her mother to have the Department of Child Services
investigate me on false charges regarding my daughter and my other
children. When the same teacher found out that my daughter was
confiding in me, she continually gave my daughter dirty looks across
the room and whispered comments to her in private that my daughter
found frightening. She subjected my daughter and the entire class to
several inappropriate stories, homework assignments and finally sang
a horrible song to them - the common themes in each instance being
forced male dominance over women and human dismemberment. Yet somehow
MY behavior is in question here? Alicia's teacher was exhibiting
disturbing behavior and she proved this to the entire community. My
behavior, my obligation was to do whatever was necessary to point
this out and to keep others (the Evaluation Committee and our
administrators) from covering it up before more harm came to my
daughter and other children - nothing more. How can any of you
suggest that, by revealing this woman's behavior, my behavior is
somehow suspect.
Your letter further states "You have repeatedly sent blind emails to
community members making negative statements about the former class
teacher, the Evaluation Committee, and members of the administration,
in direct conflict with our communication protocol."
I pointed out the truth. The truth reflected negatively on the class
teacher, the Evaluation Committee and the members of the
administration - this is their fault, not mine. They are responsible
for what happened. With regard to blind emails, I communicated in
blind emails for the reason that not everyone I emailed to has given
me permission to share their email address so I could not make those
addresses public. You assume too much thinking that by including the
recipient's email addresses you would have had any better opportunity
to do your damage control. I had to send my emails out in waves.
Replying to the recipients of my original email would only have
assured Highland Hall of reaching everyone on one wave of email so
the fact that they were blind copied made no difference whatsoever in
Highland Halls ability to respond. Emails that were issued by other
parents contained email addresses but were forwarded to me and I
could have forwarded them to others - the fact that they contained
addresses was no indication of who eventually saw them. Indeed some
people I email to are almost certain to forward my emails to others.
I can't even tell you who received them. The emails went everywhere
and that's the nature of email. People understand this and still I
received messages from only four people asking to be taken off the
email list during this entire process. Considering the number of
emails that were sent, that's amazing. None of the other parents, to
my knowledge, have been reprimanded for participating in this email
campaign - and many of the emails by other parents were more
"negative" than mine.
Let's be clear about the communication protocol. It is a directive by
the school - not a contract between the school and parents that
requires parents to suspend their first amendment freedoms. In fact,
parents are absolutely entitled to communicate concerns with other
parents, other teachers, relatives, prospective parents, God, their
dog, in whatever way they choose - whether in person, by phone, by
email or by telepathy. Highland Hall has no right to (or expectation
that they can) suspend basic human communication. I never agreed to
this protocol, nor do I agree to the tenets contained within it.
While perhaps not originally intended as such, it is being used to
isolate parents so that parents who have a complaint are frustrated
or otherwise coerced into silence. Many parents could have the same
complaint about a teacher but if they are to follow this protocol
each thinks they are the only ones complaining. This is wrong,
unhealthy and immoral. The communication protocol is a way for
Highland Hall to control information and is another obvious and
shameful action on the part of the school. Other parents who strictly
adhered to the communications protocol to voice their concerns and
complaints have also received notice that their child may not be
re-enrolled. Let's be honest, the College just wants to weed out the
complainers - it has nothing to do with following the communication
protocol, it is about Highland Hall's need to control people.
You further declare "Your recent blind copy email, inviting people to
a website where you have made a number of negative comments about
Highland Hall and specific individuals in the community, is an
example of your behavior."
Yes, it is an example of my behavior that I am proud of. My efforts
to open a place for free dialog among the Highland Hall community are
much more honest and noble than what anyone at Highland Hall has
done. Highland Hall has had a web site for years and despite repeated
requests has never offered a forum for open communications among
parents. If Highland Hall would allow this on their own site, my
efforts may have been unnecessary. Indeed, any such forum offered by
Highland Hall would be sure to suffer heavy censorship and banishment
of some "disgruntled" community members (like most of the
Anthroposophical forums do). The site I invited parents to was
created so that open dialog between people involved in Waldorf
education could exist and hopefully bring them closer. It is
uncensored and anyone may join and stay as long as they like and
discuss anything they like. It is healthy to talk about things.
Regarding "negative" comments, my comments aren't negative, the
atmosphere at Highland Hall is negative and my comments describe and
reflect this. No specific individuals were mentioned in my posts but
as with any close community, most of us in the community have a good
idea of who the players are. When I related my response to a private
email, I was careful to remove references to individuals. It is
curious that not a single parent has posted a positive comment about
Highland Hall. For that matter, no teacher, board member, college
member or administrator has made the slightest effort to challenge
anything that I have said. That's because I always speak the truth.
Some people don't like this. Apparently, many people from our
community have signed up for notification whenever new posts are made
so certainly it behooves Highland Hall to set the record straight if
I am not being truthful.
You state "You have also refused to meet with the group designated by
the College to speak with your about your concerns and activities." I
had to make a phone call to Highland Hall to find out what meeting
this refers to. I am told it refers to one that was scheduled several
months ago that I declined to attend after two other parents attended
a similar meeting and were ambushed and humiliated by the "group".
You expect me to welcome this sort of exchange? Your own actions have
made this impossible.
You close with "Our decision only applies to Alicia and next year's
sixth grade class. It does not apply to your other children at
Highland Hall as long as you follow the guidelines of our
communications protocol." Why, I wonder does this only apply to
Alicia? Why don't my public criticisms about Highland Hall affect the
status of my other children? Could it be that Alicia has already
decided not to return to Highland Hall next year? Could it be that
she has made her desire to never return to Highland Hall clear to the
school, to her lawyer, to her classmates? Why is this letter even
necessary? Could it be to blackmail or shame me into compliance with
the ridiculous communication protocol? To disgrace me in the
community? Do you think that by taking this non-action with me you
can satisfy other parents that something has been done?
I had a lot of concern when I realized I would have to tell Alicia
about your cruel and unnecessarily hurtful letter. I let her read it
herself. When she was finished - she cheered and asked me if she
could call her friends and tell them the good news! She is excited
about leaving Highland Hall and the mind control and humiliation that
comes with it. It was as if a huge burden was lifted off her
shoulders. Does your communication protocol allow her to share her
excitement at leaving your school with her friends or is she still
bound by your silly control issues now that she is out?
I understand why you don't like me rocking the boat. Clearly, this is
not the boat I would have chosen if I knew at the beginning of this
journey where this boat was headed. I am someone who regularly checks
the integrity of the boat. Yet despite my diligent efforts, the boat
has veered off course, as it commonly does, and the Captain has
already run into an iceberg. The crew is straightening the deck
chairs while I, one of the passengers, have noticed that the boat is
sinking and have brought it to everyone's attention. Clearly, in your
minds, I, the passenger must be to blame. Your conclusions don't hold
water. Your actions don't hold water. Your characterizations of me
don't hold water. Your boat is sinking, I'm trying to help you bail
water and you're trying to throw me overboard. Fine, it's your boat -
I can swim. Maybe without me, your boat will hold water.
What you have allowed to transpire, not just now but over many years
at Highland Hall is shameful and you need to consider yourselves
accountable. You are supposed to be educators, yet you let your
arrogance and misapplications of your spiritual philosophy
continually lead you to make terrible decisions that adversely and
sometimes harmfully affect the children in your charge. You claim
that the 6th grade class needs to heal. In reality, it is the school
that needs to heal. This cannot happen until you realize that YOU
need to heal - that your relationships with parents need to heal.
Open your eyes - I'm not the one with the behavioral problem here.
You haven't the dignity or the courage to stand up and face for
yourselves, let alone admit to the community, what has happened. One
of your own, a Waldorf teacher, did cruel and horrible things to the
children in her class. She humiliated them, emotionally tortured
them, exposed them to horrible ideas that still give children
nightmares and in some cases directed them to hide her actions from
their own parents, even told them they didn't see what they saw with
their own eyes. She admitted doing almost every one of these things.
You all stood by her, watched her behave this way and later defended
her when her actions were brought to the attention of the community.
And you still do. Why? Is it because she's an Anthroposophist, and in
your eyes, the worst Anthroposophist is better than the best
outsider? Shame on all of you for harboring such prejudice. You let
Anthroposophy guide you rather than truth and honesty - and believe
me (and thousands of other people who have been exposed to and
rejected Anthroposophy), there is a big difference. Your dishonesty
causes people to repel you more than your philosophy does. It causes
you to lose your most valuable asset - parents who are already
enrolled in your school. My daughter saw through you - my sons will
too in time. Any one of my kids has ten times more character than all
of you collectively. You don't deserve them at your school and, in my
view, you have nothing to offer them as long as you work outside of
truth and honesty. I am proud of my behavior and feel nothing but
shame for yours.
Pete Karaiskos
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:30:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: link to another story about the Streatham fire
http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.505114.0.arson_probe_after_inferno.php
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:13:28 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fiona=20Steiner?= (fiona_study yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Can some good come?
for the links nicole,
shall get onto it.
Fiona
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:47:10 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: how Waldorf critics are made
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) The following open letter was posted to a discussion board at
) OpenWaldorf. The original is at:
)
) http://p087.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm20.showMessageRange?topicID=54.topic&start=61&stop=61
)
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ***
Yeah, years of abuse slowly chipped away the marble to reveal the critic
inside. I really feel sorry for the many great teachers and parents at
Highland Hall and perhaps other Waldorf schools who endure this sort of
thing year after year in fear and silence.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:56:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
Fiona, you wrote,
)To be honest most of what i have seen on the site seems to be based
)around proving whether Steiner was an anti-semite.
If you browse in the waldorf-critics archives you'll find many topics
have been discussed here. And the waldorf-critics list isn't a
"site," it's a discussion list. On the PLANS web site you'll find
articles about many other subjects besides race.
)I have not been able to find much analysing the teaching methods.
You're welcome to start a thread on any subject you want, any time.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:32:43 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Can some good come?
Dear Fiona,
Thanks for joining the discussion. A new point of view always wakes us up.
)I do not want to get into arguing points.
(pythonmode)
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me
puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
(/pythonmode)
)I am not particularly interested in whether Steiner was a racist or not.
Where the rubber meets the road is: to what extent does studying
Steiner's race-based "evolution of consciousness" affect the way a
teacher treats his or her pupils?
)Or whether there really are faeries at the bottom of a Waldorf garden.
)What I am interested in is finding a better way to educate children.
)From what i have read here attending these schools has for varied
)reasons had unpleasant to devastating effects on students and their
)families. I have also heard the other side from many people which
)can be summed up by quoting one friend...
)
)" I have known a few people who have been to Steiner schools. They
)loved it. And they are some of the most imaginative and creative
)people i have ever met."
)
)So what to believe?
That the great majority of Waldorf parents love it. The system makes
sure that people who have problems with it, who might want to correct
something that's wrong, simply disappear and don't dissipate any of
the golden haze of everything nice.
)Well, *everything* of course. The challenge is how to use these
)beliefs for a practical purpose. What makes these schools a dream
)for some and a complete nightmare for others? What works and what
)needs reform? And in light of the PLANS agenda; can these schools be
)run in a secular manner?
)
)I am gathering that most people here have had contact with Steiner /
)Anthroposophy through the schools.
The schools are the main public contact with Anthroposophy, though we
do meet refugees from Camphill and Anthroposophical Medicine
occasionally.
)From that i would gather that you were in some way dissatisfied with
)the mainstream education. Well me too. I have 6 nieces and nephews
)and there education, to me, is terrifying. I love these children and
)they are being either bored to death in the classroom by teachers
)who just don't care and are themselves products of a dull schooling
)system. Or they are being pushed to achieve, requiring tutors at the
)age of 4 or have workloads that are simply ridiculous for a child.
Of course there are awful schools and bad teachers in public school
systems. But there are also many dedicated teachers. Waldorf people
bash public schools indiscriminately.
Recently I visited a beautiful alternative elementary school in
Lagunitas, California, that out-Waldorfed Waldorf. Art everywhere,
gardens all around, even chickens and a pond! But it was also full of
books.
I fell in love with Waldorf because of the integration of art, and
what I believed was a classical curriculum.
)On WC it seems that a lot of murky bath water has been thrown out
)but now, "Where's the baby?" If you do manage to get state funding
)pulled from Waldorf schools (are you trying to get it pulled from
)ALL schools?)
Given that Waldorf schools are religious schools, they cannot be
funded by taxes. Americans don't want to pay taxes for other people's
religions.
)will children be better off for the schooling options? Montessori is
)a brilliant system of education, but it is not for all. It does not
)engender in children a sense of being able to create a new world. I
)believe Steiner's philosophy has something to offer in this regard.
)What of his philosophy is of use and what needs to be incorporated
)is what i aim to discover.
)I am hoping that you will help me with your ideas, opinions,
)research and honesty.
You won't lack for opinions here.
)Thanks you Nicole for the dissertation link, I will have a read once
)i am done reading a 370pg thesis on teacher training in Steiner
)education in Australia.
)
)So that is my purpose. If you would be so kind as to indulge me for
)a wee bit more i would like to give you a bit of back ground to my
)thinking. Hopefully it will give you an understanding of where i am
)coming from and people wont take my comments in the wrong way.
)
)I believe in *everything*. It has never a been a problem for me to
)reconcile science and religion. They a simply different ways of
)looking at the same things.
Yes, one way of handling the conflict is keeping the realms separate.
)Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? And quite frankly who
)cares? Science has cured people of diseases, as has faith, herbs and
)the pure power of the mind, take the placebo effect. Who is going to
)tell any of these healed people that they are "still sick, just too
)stupid to realise it"?
Well, in medicine separating reality from wishful thinking is very
important. A matter of life and death, in fact.
)Let's her it for Buddha! How right was he!?! Everyone makes up their
)own *reality* and one person's *reality* may not resemble another's
)in the slightest. I am sure we all agree that no-one has the right
)to dictate what someone else should think. From that basis...
)
)all *realities* must be accepted, if not agreed upon. If these
)*realities* are creations of thought then we need to go beyond
)thought to see what is the underlying essence. To do this people
)choose faith, science, meditation, nature or even thought itself.
)The path you choose will be largely dependant on the *reality* you
)have already created for yourself.
My friend Tom Flynn wrote:
"I would propose the following general rule for gauging
accountability for beliefs.
"If one acts on one's beliefs in such a way as to affect others,
one can be held morally accountable for one's decisions to accept the
motivating belief according to:
"(1) how profoundly actions based on that belief may influence
the lives of others, and
"(2) how accurately that belief does-or does not-correspond to
the way things really work in the natural world as empirical study
reveals it to us.
"According to this rule, if we propose to act in ways that have
grave consequences--say, if we plan to blockade an abortion clinic
because we are right-to-life advocates, or propose to deny our
offspring needed medical care because of our Christian Science
beliefs--then we behave immorally unless our motivating beliefs are
independently verifiable according to the laws of the everyday world
in which our actions will have their consequences."
["The Morality of Unbelief" Free Inquiry, Spring '89]
)ps just for a laugh...
)
)(is this allowed?
Jokes, and heart-rending appeals for good causes, are off-topic.
Keeping on topic is one of two serious rules we have here. The other
is to not talk about the personalities of the other subscribers (no
ad hominem arguments).
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1393
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Can some good come?
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Can some good come?
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Can some good come?
By abd lomaxdesign.com
South London Press on Streatham fire
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:01:59 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Can some good come?
At 01:32 AM 7/2/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Given that Waldorf schools are religious schools, they cannot be funded by
)taxes. Americans don't want to pay taxes for other people's religions.
I'm an American and I find Mr. Dugan's statement.... deceptive. Yes, we
don't want taxes to support religion, *however*, a blanket prohibition
against tax funding of religious schools has a *contrary* effect, that is,
it unfairly discriminates against people who want their children educated
in a religious environment, *and who pay taxes*. In order to educate their
children in a religious school, in absence of a voucher system or the like,
they have to pay double, they pay the taxes to support the public school
system and they pay the school fees.
*Yes,* there are problems involved with public support of private schools.
The solution which has been proposed many times is a voucher system, where
parents can use state vouchers to pay private school fees, *provided* that
the private schools meet public criteria. The exact nature of those
criteria would be quite important. However, with a proper voucher system,
it would not be true that "Americans would be paying taxes for other
people's religions." In fact, with a proper voucher *amount*, it could
still be true that religious schools would be saving the public money, that
is "religions" would still be paying for other people's "education," i.e.,
by reducing the burden on the public.
Another approach would be a refundable tax credit. A tax deduction would be
better than nothing, but would only benefit people who have enough income
to itemize. Even a tax credit would not be as good as vouchers because it
would require individuals who might not have the resources to come up with
the school fees in advance, thus discriminating against the poor.
And then we have the incorporated presumption that Waldorf education is
religious education. This is, as Mr. Dugan well knows, a matter of
substantial controversy, and I think it is before the courts at this time,
due to a lawsuit filed by PLANS (and about which I know little, so I
certainly may have details wrong). Waldorf education does not clearly fit
within what has been considered religious education in the past, but it
also does have certain resemblances with religious education.
That a practice may have religious aspects does not per se make the
practice prohibited for public institutions, as has been tested many times
in the courts, without a full resolution, "Under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance being still a matter of controversy due to the Supreme Court's
reliance on a technical defect in the suit before it.
The Founding Fathers appear to have had in mind, when they prohibited an
"establishment of religion," *preference* of one religion over others in
state policy and practice; however, it should be considered that the
absence of explicit religion is itself a religion, and when absence of
religion becomes preferred, as it has, there *is* an establishment of
religion. If you can start a charter school, and as long as *no* religion
is taught in it, then it can be publicly funded, "absence of religion" has
become preferred. I don't think that the Founding Fathers would have
supported this development.
Other democratic countries manage to find a way to provide public support
for religious schools. I haven't noticed them turning into monstrous
theocracies. The only putative theocracies I can think of *started* as
such, they were not created due to allowances made for independent
religious schools.
Key to a public funding of private schools policy would be that religion
would become irrelevant. A school could have a religious basis, but
religion in the curriculum would not be state-supported unless somehow the
school manages to satisfy state requirements as to quality of education,
while saving enough money that the left-over funding helps to subsidize the
religious curriculum. But this would not be state support of religion,
rather it would be supporters of religion donating the fruit of their work
to religious education, they would have earned the surplus.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 19:26:03 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
) And then we have the incorporated presumption that Waldorf education is
) religious education.
As one fond of arbitrarily defining words (like 'antisemitism') to suit
your own arguments, you won't be surprised to hear that one definition
of 'presumption' is 'belief based on reasonable evidence'. If you want
to argue that Waldorf education shouldn't be thought of as religious and
is therefore constitutional, please provide some counter-evidence. I'd
like something a bit more solid than your opinion of what the Founding
Fathers had in mind. Or maybe you could show me why I should pay more
attention to your opinion on that subject than other people's.
) however, it should be considered that the
) absence of explicit religion is itself a religion, and when absence of
) religion becomes preferred, as it has, there *is* an establishment of
) religion.
There you go again with your idiosyncratic definitions, and that's a
particularly wacky one. Leaving aside your over-general statement that
absence of religion is now preferred, to say that a preferred absence of
religion is itself a religion is like saying that fish prefer breathing
air because they prefer breathing water.
) Other democratic countries manage to find a way to provide public
) support
) for religious schools. I haven't noticed them turning into monstrous
) theocracies.
That's a straw-man argument. As I understand it, as a non-member of
PLANS, they're saying it's unconstitutional and should be stopped on
those grounds. I haven't seen anyone from PLANS arguing that
state-funded Waldorf education will lead to a monstrous theocracy. Have
I overlooked a statement like that somewhere on www.waldorfcritics.org?
Please point me to it.
How's the research going? Now that you appear to have time for 500-word
posts on other subjects, should we take it that you've read one or more
of the books Peter S. suggested you get hold of?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:32:35 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
At 03:26 PM 7/2/2004, Barnaby McEwan wrote:
)There you go again [...]
Indeed.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:25:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: South London Press on Streatham fire
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0400lambeth/tm_objectid=14387307&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=in-tents-time-for-school-name_page.html
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1394
-- Topica Digest --
Re: And another one bites the dust...
By SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
RE: Can some good come?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Can some good come?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: And another one bites the dust...
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: And another one bites the dust...
By SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:46:03 EDT
From: SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Subject: Re: And another one bites the dust...
Yes, but the a new school is being formed in Fairfield, CT by 3 of the
Anthroposophists that were on Linden Hill's Board of Trustees. This new school will
be in a home. The silent auction was set-up, by this group, so that a person
couldn't bid on one item such as a desk or some art supplies, one had to bid
on an entire classroom. Apparently, they (the anthros) drove away with 2
complete classrooms for $5.00 each. The parents in attendance were furious.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:50:17 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
Abd:
)The Founding Fathers appear to have had in mind, when they prohibited an
)"establishment of religion," *preference* of one religion over others in
)state policy and practice; however, it should be considered that the
)absence of explicit religion is itself a religion,
Only if the term "religion" itself has no real meaning.
If you apply this reasoning to anything else that goes on in a school, does
it make sense? If a school does not teach swimming, can we say that the
absence of swimming is the same as swimming?
If there are no foreign languages taught, are there still *really* foreign
languages being taught?
If there's no football team, is that really just another kind of football
team?
)and when absence of religion becomes preferred, as it has, there *is* an
)establishment of religion.
I think you have logical categories hopelessly mixed up, and you display a
familiar religious person's bias that everyone else actually sees the world
the same way you do even if they say they don't - but we don't really need
to go there I suppose.
Let's try it another way.
In fact, there *is* religion in schools - all schools. Every school, public
and private, everywhere, and plenty of it. And not Abd's
religion-that-isn't-one, but real religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam
etc.
The schools are full of religious people, both teachers and students, so
obviously, there is plenty of religion going on. What there is, is *space*
and *freedom* for all those people to have their own religious beliefs and
traditions etc.. This space and freedom are maintained by the fact that the
school may not *promote* any particular religion. Thereby, no one has to
defend their views or practices against others, or participate in ones they
don't agree with, and your children are not subjected to other religious
influences when they're outside your supervision. This *preserves* religion
and preserves your right to raise your children in the religion of your
choice, and this positive, pro-active, pro-religion goal was indeed the
founders' intention.
This is actually the crux of the old school prayer arguments also. Advocates
of "school prayer" complain that their children aren't allowed to pray in
school. Of course their children are allowed to pray in school. Anyone can
pray in school, any time. (In the middle of a math test, for instance) :)
What isn't allowed is for the school to *tell* your child what prayer to
pray - to give them the words, the beliefs, and make them recite them. To
stage a ritual that everyone has to participate in, or teach content that
everyone must learn.
The only real restriction is that they can't pray *out loud*. Other kids may
be praying *other* prayers and don't want to have to listen to yours. In our
public schools, you can't bother people who are praying.
This absolutely meets all your stringent requirements, Abd, even when
they're reduced to absurdity as with the "even the absence of religion is
religion" argument. Anything anyone believes is a religion, or even anything
anyone *doesn't* believe? Okay. Then you can't, also, logically deny that
millions of people are, in fact, practicing their religions every day in
public schools, and that this is even, in fact, encouraged.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:18:47 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
At 01:32 AM 7/2/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Given that Waldorf schools are religious schools, they cannot be funded by
)taxes. Americans don't want to pay taxes for other people's religions.
And Abd said:
)I'm an American and I find Mr. Dugan's statement.... deceptive. Yes, we
)don't want taxes to support religion, *however*, a blanket prohibition
)against tax funding of religious schools has a *contrary* effect, that is,
)it unfairly discriminates against people who want their children educated
)in a religious environment, *and who pay taxes*. In order to educate their
)children in a religious school, in absence of a voucher system or the like,
)they have to pay double, they pay the taxes to support the public school
)system and they pay the school fees.
I no longer much trust what you write either, Abd, since there was surely no
need to say what Dan said was "deceptive" when what you apparently mean is
that you disagree with him about tax funding of religious schools.
You point out that some people want their children educated in a religious
environment. You aren't necessarily being "discriminated" against if you
want something you can't have at taxpayer expense. People want all kinds of
things from a school. I want a lacrosse team *and I pay taxes* so can I say
I am being discriminated against if the local public school doesn't have
one? I want foreign language instruction or I want basket weaving or I want
a gymnastics team or a focus on math and science or . . . *and I pay taxes*
. . .
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:40:39 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: And another one bites the dust...
That is hilarious.
I guess you have to give them credit for not being willing to give up
easily, and for rigging it to their own advantage. This reasoning is somehow
familiar . . . If you are joining us in the new school, then you will be
happily making use of the classrooms purchased as sets and you should be
glad we so thoughtfully gave ourselves such a bargain.
If you are not joining us, then our karma with you is done. You didn't
really think we had anything to offer you in good faith did you?
(Meet the new school, same as the old school . . .) LOL
Diana
)Yes, but the a new school is being formed in Fairfield, CT by 3 of the
)Anthroposophists that were on Linden Hill's Board of Trustees. This new
)school will be in a home. The silent auction was set-up, by this group, so
)that a person couldn't bid on one item such as a desk or some art supplies,
)one had to bid on an entire classroom. Apparently, they (the anthros)
)drove away with 2 complete classrooms for $5.00 each. The parents in
)attendance were furious.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 20:53:01 EDT
From: SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Subject: Re: And another one bites the dust...
I'm contemplating submitting an article to the local newspaper to inform the
general public as to what Waldorf really consists of and how the anthros feel
they are opening up this school to further white supremacy for future
generations. Are there legal issues I need to be concerned with?
Sharmaine
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1395
-- Topica Digest --
RE: And another one bites the dust...
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: And another one bites the dust...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Can some good come?
By abd lomaxdesign.com
ADMIN: ad hominem warning [RE: Can some good come?]
By dan dandugan.com
Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
By lioncell gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:49:07 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: And another one bites the dust...
SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com wrote:
)
)
) I'm contemplating submitting an article to the local newspaper to inform
) the
) general public as to what Waldorf really consists of and how the anthros
) feel
) they are opening up this school to further white supremacy for future
) generations. Are there legal issues I need to be concerned with?
) Sharmaine
)
LOL... I'm afraid if you approach it exactly as you have stated it here,
you should prepare yourself for a struggle. I'm no legal expert but I'm
guessing you will have to present adequate evidence supporting your
claim that this is what they are doing (or feeling). An article
describing your experiences with Waldorf education would be great...
accusing them of white supremacy might be difficult to defend or prove,
and I suspect you would have to prove it if you made that claim. Again,
I'm not a legal expert.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 10:29:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: And another one bites the dust...
)I'm contemplating submitting an article to the local newspaper to inform the
)general public as to what Waldorf really consists of and how the anthros feel
)they are opening up this school to further white supremacy for future
)generations. Are there legal issues I need to be concerned with?
)Sharmaine
You should avoid naming any individuals, and have back-up for any
assertion of fact that you make. Otherwise make it clear that your
statements are your -opinion-. Defenses against libel are truth and
opinion.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:11:33 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
At 11:25 PM 6/28/2004, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)As for Steiner's overall judgement on Jews and Jewishness, even
)anthroposophist historian Ralf Sonnenberg, the most knowledgeable
)anthroposophist analyst of this topic (who strongly disagrees with my
)conclusions about Steiner's antisemitism), agrees that these were indeed
)preponderantly negative.
In his post, Mr. Staudenmaier makes a strong case that "antisemitic" is a
legitimate label applied to Steiner. However, as I've noted before,
Staudenmaier is far more knowledgeable than I with regard to the source
materials. Sometimes I can overcome my own lack of knowledge by analysis of
the materials presented, but Staudenmaier has now presented sufficient
evidence that I can no longer controvert his conclusions based on the
material available.
But, as is obvious here from what I quoted, biased analysis can produce
opposite conclusions. What would truly be interesting would be an
interchange between Staudenmaier and, say, Mr. Sonnenberg. I could see a
weakness here and there in what Staudenmaier presented (mostly along lines
already beaten to death in these discussions), but someone familiar with
the material might be able to do far better.
Essentially, if I had to make a judgement today (I don't), I'd have to
conclude that Steiner was antisemitic.
This is because of the principle I've mentioned before, that testimony is
presumed true unless controverted. Staudenmaier has presented sufficient
uncontroverted testimony (as to what is in the historical record) to
warrant the conclusion, alternate explanations and scenarios have become,
for me, untenable. However, it remains quite possible that the historical
record has been presented in a biased way, that a fuller examination of the
record would bring a different conclusion.
This is not a court of law and the defendant, or his surrogates or
defenders, have not been summoned....
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:57:50 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
At 09:18 AM 7/3/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)You point out that some people want their children educated in a religious
)environment. You aren't necessarily being "discriminated" against if you
)want something you can't have at taxpayer expense. People want all kinds of
)things from a school. I want a lacrosse team *and I pay taxes* so can I say
)I am being discriminated against if the local public school doesn't have
)one? I want foreign language instruction or I want basket weaving or I want
)a gymnastics team or a focus on math and science or . . . *and I pay taxes*
Diana took the argument entirely out of context in order to make it appear
ridiculous. I'm learning to expect this from her. Too bad.
The point is that public schools teach, say, arithmetic. A private
religious school teaches arithmetic. If I send my child to a private school
because of *other* things that the private school teaches, that are not
taught in the public schools, then, of course, there is no double payment.
However, public schools perform two functions at public expense that are
also performed by private schools: they provide a basic education and they
provide supervised child care. Private school parents are paying twice for
these functions, once with the taxes that support public schools, and again
with the tuition that supports the private school.
However, if a voucher were issued to parents [or to qualified schools], and
the amount of the voucher represented the incremental cost of educating a
child in the public school system, transfer of this voucher to a private
school would not injure the public schools, yet it would reduce the unjust
double burden.
As I pointed out, I thought clearly, this would *not* represent public
funding of religious education; rather it would represent public funding of
education meeting public standards. Religious schools would be only one of
many kinds of schools which would benefit.
There is only one fly in the ointment that I can see. Private schools
represent, at present, a hidden subsidy for the public schools (or, more
accurately, for the public treasury). Issuance of vouchers would be
effectively eliminating a double tax. Elimination of any tax reduces tax
revenues, thus creating a potential budget shortfall. The problem is not
from potential enrollment increase in private schools due to the
implementation of a voucher system, but from *existing* private schools, as
parents with children in those schools start to pay tuition costs, that
they previously paid out-of-pocket, with vouchers. The existing system has
a built-in inertia which will make changes difficult, even if they come to
be seen as desirable.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 00:14:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: ADMIN: ad hominem warning [RE: Can some good come?]
Abd, you wrote,
)Diana took the argument entirely out of context in order to make it
)appear ridiculous. I'm learning to expect this from her. Too bad.
Please direct your comments to the topic being discussed, not to the
personalities of your fellow subscribers.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:25:03 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
"As for Steiner's overall judgement on Jews and Jewishness, even
anthroposophist historian Ralf Sonnenberg, the most knowledgeable
anthroposophist analyst of this topic (who strongly disagrees with my
conclusions about Steiner's antisemitism), agrees that these were indeed
preponderantly negative."
Abd responded:
"In his post, Mr. Staudenmaier makes a strong case that "antisemitic" is
a legitimate label applied to Steiner. However, as I've noted before,
Staudenmaier is far more knowledgeable than I with regard to the source
materials. Sometimes I can overcome my own lack of knowledge by analysis
of the materials presented, but Staudenmaier has now presented
sufficient evidence that I can no longer controvert his conclusions
based on the material available.
"But, as is obvious here from what I quoted, biased analysis can produce
opposite conclusions. What would truly be interesting would be an
interchange between Staudenmaier and, say, Mr. Sonnenberg. I could see a
weakness here and there in what Staudenmaier presented (mostly along
lines already beaten to death in these discussions), but someone
familiar with the material might be able to do far better.
"Essentially, if I had to make a judgement today (I don't), I'd have to
conclude that Steiner was antisemitic.
"This is because of the principle I've mentioned before, that testimony
is presumed true unless controverted. Staudenmaier has presented
sufficient uncontroverted testimony (as to what is in the historical
record) to warrant the conclusion, alternate explanations and scenarios
have become, for me, untenable. However, it remains quite possible that
the historical record has been presented in a biased way, that a fuller
examination of the record would bring a different conclusion.
"This is not a court of law and the defendant, or his surrogates or
defenders, have not been summoned.... "
Well Abd, from what I see you have long made up your mind. Peter
Staudenmaier has provided a list of literature from which to choose any
*one* book to verify matters for yourself. You just cannot be bothered
refusing to check any evidence presented. Regardless what is presented
you have ruled out that Steiner had been an antisemite.
I once wrote:
" [ ... ] Now I do not view her to be a full-blown antisemit[e] but one
incident was enough to make her assume burning synagogues etc was
justified. She acknowledges that extermination of Jews was wrong but she
is unwilling to see how one is linked to the other. Good indoctrination
and one or two experiences were sufficient to make her indifferent to
the fate of German-Jewish citizens. [ ... ]
and you responded:
"What you are describing is antisemitism, pretty clearly. Not even a
lesser form. Just not the *greatest* form. A smouldering resentment
rather than full-blown, active hatred."
I am amzed to see how you came to the above conclusion with such ease.
In classifying my mother not to be a full-blown antisemite I pretty much
applied the term the way you usually do. She never once advocated for
the killing of a single Jew or the extermination of Jewish people as a
whole. (In fact I guess she would have had major problem had a single of
those incidents happened in her very presence.) She had not even
promoted the idea of assimilation either way. Yet, the indoctrination
she had received informed her resentment and made her indifferent to the
plight of Jewish people, a trait so common during the days of Naziism.
Not to kill does not absolve an individual of the part s/he played
within the system. To look away contributed greatly to the ease and
perfection which made the Shoah possible. I do know the difference
between active participation and more "passive" indifference resentment
but I myself would not call one antisemitism and the other 50%
antisemtism. As I said all these various forms are complementary.
To view Steiner's ideas on Jews and Jewishness in the context of his
overall racial doctrine is important as it clearly documents his racist
sentiments and the true nature of the theory of root races. If you
choose to ignore those despite the evidence provided, well, I cannot
convince you. But makes me wonder about the precious time and energy on
behalf of an individual who refuses to check sources claiming you'd have
no time, yet spent a great deal of time on list defending Steiner. I
cannot claim it is a great deal of fun to read Steiner and I really have
more pleasant ideas to spend my time but in order to come to a
conclusion *myself* I need to be familiar with the sources in question.
By the way, since you obviously refuse to read Peter Staudenmaier's
work, let me briefly quote from his work:
'The affinities with Nazi discourse are unmistakable. Wolfgang Treher
makes a convincing case that Steiner’s racial theories, especially the
repeated scheme of a small minority evolving further while a large mass
declines, bear striking similarities even in detail to Hitler’s own
theories. He concludes: “Concentration camps, slave labor and the murder
of Jews constitute a praxis whose key is perhaps to be found in the
‘theories’ of Rudolf Steiner.”'
See, my interest was not to emphasize on Peter Staudenmaier's work once
again but to cite the work of a German psychiatrist. Unfortunately his
book 'Hitler, Steiner, Schreber: Gaeste aus einer anderen Welt, Die
seelischen Strukturen des schizophrenen Prophetenwahns' is not yet
available in English. That's why I needed to quote Peter Staudenmaier
who being fluent in German obviously is familiar with Treher's book.
Wolfgang Treher extensively documented the parallels in Hitler's and
Steiner's utterances and behaviour and in fact convincingly concludes
that both suffered from a schziophrenic psychosis, obviously not a rare
case among socalled prophetic leaders. Steiner's antisemtism though
surely is not merely the product of schizophrenia. But given your recent
postings I doubt you are particularly interested in any of that anyway.
Akua
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1396
-- Topica Digest --
Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: ADMIN: ad hominem warning [RE: Can some good come?]
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
By lioncell gmx.net
OT? articles on school vouchers
By stella_blue88 hotmail.com
[from Sharon Lombard] Re: Can some good come?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: [from Sharon Lombard] Re: Can some good come?
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: And another one bites the dust...
By SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Re: And another one bites the dust...
By SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
RE: Can some good come?
By diana.winters verizon.net
"No religion" is really just another religion?
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:26:10 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
Sometimes I wish people would read posts before they respond to them.
At 07:25 AM 7/5/2004, Akua Desta wrote:
)[...] Abd responded:
)[...]"Essentially, if I had to make a judgement today (I don't), I'd have
)to conclude that Steiner was antisemitic.
)Well Abd, from what I see you have long made up your mind. [...]
)Regardless what is presented you have ruled out that Steiner had been an
)antisemite.
I don't see any way to reconcile what I wrote, and which Desta quoted, with
Desta's imaginations about my assumptions. It would seem that Desta,
regardless of what I write, has assumed that I am fixed in my prejudice
regarding Steiner. Pot, kettle, black.
Desta's comment came after the moderator jumped in with a warning about
ad-hominem comments; yet the moderator only directed his warning to me,
instead of putting list members in general on notice that discussions were
becoming savage. I'm assuming that I'm allowed to mirror Desta's charge;
however, I will not continue discussion of this.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:26:36 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ad hominem warning [RE: Can some good come?]
At 03:14 AM 7/5/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Abd, you wrote,
))Diana took the argument entirely out of context in order to make it
))appear ridiculous. I'm learning to expect this from her. Too bad.
)
)Please direct your comments to the topic being discussed, not to the
)personalities of your fellow subscribers.
Certainly I will. However, I'll note that my comment came at the end of a
series of ad-hominem comments directed at me, of equal or greater weight
than what I wrote, without any moderator comment; I've reviewed the record
to confirm this, as anyone else is free to do, so I won't waste time and
space providing further evidence. Or argument.
Blather on, folks, but I'm no longer under the illusion that this list
welcomes dissent. I'll comment here if I find a critical public interest,
otherwise it's unlikely.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:16:19 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
)
) Sometimes I wish people would read posts before they respond to them.
)
Not intending to offend anyone, but this would be good advice.
) At 07:25 AM 7/5/2004, Akua Desta wrote:
) )[...] Abd responded:
) )[...]"Essentially, if I had to make a judgement today (I don't), I'd
) )have
) )to conclude that Steiner was antisemitic.
)
) )Well Abd, from what I see you have long made up your mind. [...]
) )Regardless what is presented you have ruled out that Steiner had been an
) )
) )antisemite.
)
) I don't see any way to reconcile what I wrote, and which Desta quoted,
) with
) Desta's imaginations about my assumptions. It would seem that Desta,
) regardless of what I write, has assumed that I am fixed in my prejudice
) regarding Steiner. Pot, kettle, black.
)
) Desta's comment came after the moderator jumped in with a warning about
) ad-hominem comments; yet the moderator only directed his warning to me,
) instead of putting list members in general on notice that discussions
) were
) becoming savage. I'm assuming that I'm allowed to mirror Desta's charge;
)
) however, I will not continue discussion of this.
)
FWIW, I believe I read your statement correctly and appreciated that you
implied some possibility of being moved from your position (not that you
have necessarily established a "position" per se or have moved from it).
I suspect that you evaluated the debate and chose to express publicly
your current thoughts and that they imply a possible flexibility on your
part that is a refreshing change from what is common in these types of
debates.
I want to thank you ABD, for your participation in these debates (as
well as everyone else) and I would hope that the debates could continue
without the emotionally charged infusions from both sides.
OK, I'll go back to lurking now...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:49:42 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
Hi Abd, you wrote:
)What would truly be interesting would be an interchange between
)Staudenmaier and, say, Mr. Sonnenberg.
That would indeed be a good thing. He and I had a very interesting private
exchange last year. The arguments he presents in anthroposophist journals
diverge somewhat from the arguments he presents in historical journals, but
both are well worth reading. Unfortunately most of Sonnenberg's work is only
available in German; for anybody who reads German, the best article to start
with is his piece "'Keine Berechtigung innerhalb des modernen Völkerlebens':
Judentum, Zionismus und Antisemitismus aus der Sicht Rudolf Steiners",
Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung 12 (2003), pp. 185-209. For those who
don't read German, I recommend the abridged essay by Dirk Lorenz, "Against a
Return to Normality: Accusations of Anti-Semitism As an Occasion for
Self-Examination" in the recent anthology from Steiner Books, Judaism and
Anthroposophy (the same volume contains a short piece by Sonnenberg as well,
though it is not directly relevant to the present discussion). Works like
these offer a healthy antidote to the usual foolish claims that Steiner's
statements about Jews have been taken out of context and so forth.
Sonnenberg is extremely critical of anthroposophist Lorenzo Ravagli's
various apologias for Steiner's racial and ethnic theories; typically, it is
Ravagli's work, not Sonnenberg's, that gets translated and disseminated in
English via anthroposophist networks -- listmates may recall Frank Thomas
Smith and others touting Ravagli's analysis of Steiner's views on Jews. This
is sad testimony to the state of internal anthroposophist discourse. I
nevertheless find much of Sonnenberg's evidence unconvincing and his
reasoning misguided; he acknowledges the antisemitic components within
Steiner's early and late work, yet insists that these elements are offset by
Steiner's self-conception (which Sonnenberg and I agree on: Steiner never
thought of himself as an antisemite). I consider that a basic methodological
error. I also think that Sonnenberg has failed to contetxtualize Steiner's
writings on Jews in an adequate way; in the course of our exchange, for
example, it emerged that he had not read Robert Hamerling's book Homunkulus,
the subject of Steiner's 1888 essay on Jewry as a mistake of world history.
This is, once again, a fundamental scholarly flaw, in my view.
Sonnenberg, in turn, finds the catalog of criteria that I presented for
distinguishing antisemites like Treitschke from philosemites like Mommsen
unpersuasive, and he continues to view Steiner's stance as closer to
Mommsen's than to Treitschke's. We argued this point for several rounds in
our correspondence. The conclusion that I eventually came to is that the
historian in Sonnenberg did indeed recognize that his own preferred
arguments were historically threadbare, but that the anthroposophist in
Sonnenberg clung to these arguments in spite of their obvious inadequacy. I
think that he sees me as simply excessively and unfairly critical of
Steiner, which is perhaps close to Abd's own viewpoint. If my article on
philosemitism and antisemitism in Steiner's works ever sees the light of
day, readers will have the opportunity to decide for themselves.
)However, it remains quite possible that the historical record has been
)presented in a biased way, that a fuller examination of the record would
)bring a different conclusion.
In every contentious historical dispute, it is virtually certain that the
historical record has been presented in a biased way. This is not a bad
thing, as Abd persists in thinking. It is a good thing. It makes informed
discernment easier, not harder. For this and several other reasons, it is a
mistake to contrast "bias" with "fuller examination"; it is very frequently
the case that the fuller one's examination becomes, the more biased one's
interpretation of the material becomes, and for unimpeachable reasons. But
in this case, I am happy to concede that historians often view bias in terms
quite different from those that prevail within popular discussions. The
trouble is that when it comes to phenomena like racism and antisemitism,
then 'bias' in the popular sense is exactly what is called for. This is the
sort of bias that critical work on Steiner often displays -- the sort that
everyone, whether defender or critic or fence-sitter, ought to welcome and
encourage. It remains entirely mysterious to me why Abd appears to think
otherwise.
)This is not a court of law and the defendant, or his surrogates or
)defenders, have not been summoned....
I agree with the first clause, but the second clause is inaccurate.
Steiner's surrogates and defenders have been summoned many, many times, and
for the most part they consistently fail to hold up their end of the debate,
by any reasonable standard. Old timers on this list may recall Sean Slovan,
for instance; or more recently, folks like Soren and Jakob and a few others.
In some of these posts, you could almost see the historical impulse
wrestling with the conspiracist framework; in others, the central arguments
melted away under scrutiny. In no case, on the issues that draw my primary
attention, have the various attempts at surrogacy and defense engaged with
the substance of the critiques put forward here for more than a few
inconclusive rounds that then trail off into silence. I think this is a
deeply unfortunate situation that deprives us of a meaningful and productive
exchange about this aspect of anthroposophy. As my tenure on this list nears
its end, I invite any would-be surrogates and defenders of Steiner to step
forward and offer a historically informed alternative account of Steiner's
racial and ethnic doctrines that runs counter to the critical perspectives
presented here.
Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:12:53 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: putting Steiner's antisemitism in context
Abd,
I had in fact read a whole host of your mails in their entirety. Much of
the reasoning it contained seemed apologetic of what I would term
antisemitic in nature. Your refusal to check certain material doing your
own little research added up to it, just as your refusal to cite Steiner
quotes which had spoken of Jews in a more positive way which might have
altered my own judgement. It somehow made me wonder about the input
people had trying to provide all the necessary information.
And then there still is the difference in the way you addressed
different people on this list. Peter Staudenmaier for example is
addressed as Mr. Staudenmaier while Diana Winter is referred to as Diana
and I as Desta although I have once before indicated it is perfectly
fine to address me as Akua. Desta is my family name, by the way.
With this hopefully clarified, back to the subject matter. I am ready to
discuss the underlying issues as long as I feel qualified to do so. Are
you interested in discussing the concerns Treher raised within his book
for example? No personal offense intended I hope we'd be able to hae a
fruitful discussion with you, Abd, once again.
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:48:04 +0000
From: Aurora Weir (stella_blue88 hotmail.com)
Subject: OT? articles on school vouchers
not sure if this is OT or not (?) but in response to Abd's post on
school vouchers I submit:
The Con:
http://www.brainchildmag.com/essays/summer2003_morrill.htm
The Pro:
http://www.brainchildmag.com/essays/summer2003_granju.htm
Personally , and as a parent struggling to pay private school tuition, I
am still opposed to school vouchers in their current inception. I think
that taking public money away from (in many cases) the already ailing
public school system can only be a bad thing. JMO. I remember the
arguments I had as a teenager with other, older liberals regarding
money and schools. They maintained that just "throwing money at the
problem" was no solution; then, as now, I propose that it is at least a
good start.
Aurora
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:58:50 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [from Sharon Lombard] Re: Can some good come?
Hi Dan, feel like passing this on to critics? Hello all, Sharon Lombard
here, hope you are all well. Popping in to say hello, been very quiet
because I'm waiting for the court to sort out the public Waldorf
controversy. Since I'm here, I'd like to give my 2 cents worth and comment
on Abd's post:
At 01:32 AM 7/2/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
Given that Waldorf schools are religious schools, they cannot be funded by
taxes. Americans don't want to pay taxes for other people's religions.
Abd: I'm an American and I find Mr. Dugan's statement.... deceptive. Yes, we
don't want taxes to support religion, *however*, a blanket prohibition
against tax funding of religious schools has a *contrary* effect, that is,
it unfairly discriminates against people who want their children educated
in a religious environment, *and who pay taxes*. In order to educate their
children in a religious school, in absence of a voucher system or the like,
they have to pay double, they pay the taxes to support the public school
system and they pay the school fees.
Sharon: I pay taxes for lots of things I don't approve of, like war.
Vouchers are just a way to get around the Constitution and have been deemed
unconstitutional in some states. It is possible that this seems
discriminatory to religionists, but in our democracy where the state is to
know no heresy, things can get awfully murky and complicated. I think we
need a national education standard and unity in schools. Who will decide
which religions are deemed OK to educate children? Should the state condone
for example, fundamentalist Christian teachings that gays are sinners,
pro-choice is sinful, Muslims are sinners, hell awaits those who are not
Christians, Jesus is the only way, God created heaven and earth in 6 days?
What if some kooky Gnostic group like Heaven's Gate pops up and teaches
children that their bodies are a hindrance and that they should cover
themselves in purple shrouds, wear Nikes, take pills and "just do it" (go
off to meet a flying saucer in the tail of a comet)? Who's going to watch
all these religious schools and the doctrines they preach? Whew, sounds like
a nightmare to me.
Should the government allow ten commandment monuments to be erected in court
houses and on public property so as not to violate a public official's
personal religious beliefs? What about my non-beliefs? Do I have to be
subjected to a judge's personal religious worldview? Which version of the
ten commandments should be embraced by the state? Should we go back to the
original that condones slavery and other obscenities? Anyway, doesn't one of
the commandments say that you can't make graven images in the first place?
(sarcasm)
Abd: *Yes,* there are problems involved with public support of private
schools.
The solution which has been proposed many times is a voucher system, where
parents can use state vouchers to pay private school fees, *provided* that
the private schools meet public criteria.
Sharon: Who's going to decide what the criteria is? If Mormons teach
children a "history" from Smith's doctrine that is pure fantasy, wouldn't it
be a violation of the LDS's religious liberty if an official steps in to
rectify the situation? If a fundamentalist Muslim school starts teaching
Jihad, wouldn't it be a violation of their religious freedom if they are
called to task? The court has already held in some states that vouchers are
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, we all get taxed all the time for things we
as citizens don't necessarily support. I don't mind paying for education, I
think that's the most important tax there is, even if I have to pay twice
(which I do).
(snip) Abd: And then we have the incorporated presumption that Waldorf
education is
religious education. This is, as Mr. Dugan well knows, a matter of
substantial controversy, and I think it is before the courts at this time,
due to a lawsuit filed by PLANS (and about which I know little, so I
certainly may have details wrong). Waldorf education does not clearly fit
within what has been considered religious education in the past, but it
also does have certain resemblances with religious education.
Sharon: It is absolutely clear that Waldorf is based on Anthroposophy and
religion scholars have already classified Anthroposophy as an esoteric
religion. Anthroposophy certainly meets criteria for being classified as
such. There is belief in supernatural beings, the promise of an afterlife,
communities of like-minded believers, eternal life in the form of
reincarnation.... Anthroposophic literature itself backs this up
substantially. (There are over 350 books published by Anthro presses laying
out Steiner's sermons/doctrine). Many Waldorf texts openly discuss angels,
reincarnation, astral bodies, gnomes, the spiritual foundation of Waldorf
schools etc., so all one has to do is read Steiner's curriculum, methods and
"child development" theories that he garnered from the Akasha to know for
certain that the schools are parochial schools. Transcendental Meditation
tried this same game in the 1970s, (pretending to be something other than
religion) they lost in court. Waldorf has less of a leg to stand on than TM
because the entire Waldorf school system from curriculum, method and child
development theory is based on Anthroposophy, whereas TM only tried to
introduce one religious class into public schools. Waldorf views a child as
a reincarnating being al la Steiner's worldview, his child development model
itself is Anthroposophic with children incarnating astral bodies and what
not. Anthroposophists pretend that they don't teach Anthroposophy to
children, doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they do. All anyone
needs to do is look at the children's lesson books. My daughter's are
riddled with Anthroposophy. One of my favorite examples from one of my
daughter's books is a fuzzy picture of faceless gnomes mining in a metal
mine that she copied off the board. (See Steiner's "Nature Spirits" to learn
that he taught his followers that gnomes actually exist and can be found in
metal mines! (G)) This went on at my daughter's school right under my nose,
then I twigged on. Waldorf violated my religious freedom by imposing their
religion on my kid without my sanction.
Abd: That a practice may have religious aspects does not per se make the
practice prohibited for public institutions, as has been tested many times
in the courts, without a full resolution, "Under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance being still a matter of controversy due to the Supreme Court's
reliance on a technical defect in the suit before it.
Sharon: OK, my favorite topic. The pledge. The court always gets a full
resolution!! It's the blinking senators and religionists who hang things up
with appeals. The court rules time and time again that the pledge is
unconstitutional, follow its history! The reason for the controversy over
the pledge is this: "under god" refers to the Christian God, (it sure isn't
Allah). The pledge forces all American children to swear allegiance to
monotheism. We are not a nation under the Christian God, Vishnu, Zeus, no
god, Allah, Steiner, Jerry Falwell, Rajneesh, Bo and Peep, the Realians, L.
Ron Hubbard or Jesus, etc. Although this country was founded on religious
freedom in the hopes that the religious wars that reaped havoc in Europe
would be avoided, the state may not advance or establish any religion,
(though unfortunately it does so all the time). To force all people to pray
to the Christian God is unconstitutional. It infringes on the religious
freedom rights of non-believers and people of other faiths. Anyway, the
words "under God" were only inserted into the pledge in 1954, up until that
time, the pledge was secular. It was written in 1892 as a secular pledge by
a religious socialist and church state separationist, Francis Bellamy. It
originally read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
In 1924 the words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States
of America" against Bellamy's wishes. It was used in schools for years until
the Mc Carthy era when the Catholic men's club, "Knights of Columbus" and
other religionists lobbied congress to add the words "under God". In 1942
Jehova Witnesses sued over the pledge (pre-"under God" version) and the
court held that children could not be forced to stand and recite such a
pledge. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it
is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force
citizens to confess by words or act their faith therein. (West Virginia
State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943). Recently, the Ninth Circuit
court *supported* the Constitutional Principle when challenged by Newdow, it
is the senators, who less than 4 hours after the ruling, voted 99-0 to
denounce the court's decision, (Jesse Helmes was absent). They are only
appealing because it's a political hot potato. Atheists can't get elected.
Abd: The Founding Fathers appear to have had in mind, when they prohibited
an
"establishment of religion," *preference* of one religion over others in
state policy and practice; however, it should be considered that the
absence of explicit religion is itself a religion, and when absence of
religion becomes preferred, as it has, there *is* an establishment of
religion. If you can start a charter school, and as long as *no* religion
is taught in it, then it can be publicly funded, "absence of religion" has
become preferred. I don't think that the Founding Fathers would have
supported this development.
Sharon: Absence of religion is not preferred, America is the most religious
country in the Western world (95% are religious). The Constitution
specifically gives citizens religious freedom. The absence of religion is
not *religion*, it is *neutrality*. Schools are supposed to unify, not
segregate. It's the duty of the government to foster religious liberty and
tolerance and freedom. Public schools are places where people of all faiths
can come together and learn together regardless of pupil's or parent's
beliefs. Religious schools are a form of segregation where an "us versus
them" mentality is fostered. Public schools foster unity.
Abd: Other democratic countries manage to find a way to provide public
support
for religious schools. I haven't noticed them turning into monstrous
theocracies. The only putative theocracies I can think of *started* as
such, they were not created due to allowances made for independent
religious schools.
Sharon: I think America has become a "monstrous theocracy" lately with Bush
at the wheel. He was was sworn into office by 2 clergyman. He bombed Bagdad
and started a "crusade" against Muslims that he can never win because "God
told him to", he has set aside $50 million in 2004 for religion welfare and
invokes the name of God from office on a regular basis. I admire the French
for not bombing Muslims and for trying to maintain a neutral school
environment, though perhaps banning religious articles of clothing is a tad
harsh.
Abd: Key to a public funding of private schools policy would be that
religion
would become irrelevant. A school could have a religious basis, but
religion in the curriculum would not be state-supported unless somehow the
school manages to satisfy state requirements as to quality of education,
while saving enough money that the left-over funding helps to subsidize the
religious curriculum. But this would not be state support of religion,
rather it would be supporters of religion donating the fruit of their work
to religious education, they would have earned the surplus.
Sharon: Religion would become very relevant. Very difficult when you are
dealing with *beliefs* and democracy.....what if Neo Nazis want to teach
white supremacy in their schools....what if a Christian school wants to
teach Genesis and has an anti gay and anti abortion agenda....what if an
"orthodox" Mormon sect returns to Smith's original doctrine and teaches
racial bigotry, polygamy and history that is just plain wrong.....what if
Anthroposophists want to teach that gnomes can be found in metal
mines......who decides what is "quality" without infringing on citizen's
religious liberty? Nah, too complicated, this American cares about children
and education and doesn't want to pay for propagating other people's
religious worldviews.
Keep Church and State forever separate! Now back to waiting for the court to
decide....
Sharon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:11:41 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: [from Sharon Lombard] Re: Can some good come?
.....( gnomes actually exist and can be found in
) metal mines! (G))
Not just in metal mines...that would be absurd.
c
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:20:03 EDT
From: SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Subject: Re: And another one bites the dust...
Thanks for the input. I will use some Steiner quotes and let the reader come
to their own conclusion. I'll keep my opinions out of the article, just
state what I experienced while serving on the Board of Directors and how the
anthros excused certain situations saying karma was playing a role, etc.
Sharmaine
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:23:12 EDT
From: SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Subject: Re: And another one bites the dust...
Thanks for the information, Dan.
Sharmaine
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:45:35 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Can some good come?
Abd:
)Diana took the argument entirely out of context in order to make it appear
)ridiculous. I'm learning to expect this from her. Too bad.
Expect whatever you like, Abd, I've been on this list awhile and am not
fazed by your personal style of bullying - which is what it is, bud. You
don't want to hear from me on the topic, no one's forcing you, you know
where the delete key is located.
I agree private school parents are paying twice for lots of things; however,
I do not necessarily agree with the "unjust burden" argument. The
paying-double thing is borne (in this case; there are others, see below) of
the undesirability of taxpayer funding of religious schools, the reasons for
which, as I referred to in a previous post, are, I think, good ones. Sorry,
Abd, nothing was "out of context" about my reply and I'd love to hear why
you think those reasons are *not* good ones, if that is indeed what you
think. I might rather your own replies were more in context rather than this
constant self-indulgent taking offense. Did you find fault with my views on
why public schools avoid religious instruction? Can you rebut them or can
you counter with reasons why religious instruction *does* belong in public
schools despite these contraindications? (An aside, "some people want it" is
not going to strike me as a strong reason.) What did you make of my argument
that your kid's "right" to religion in school is not, in fact, violated in
the public schools? That her right to practice the religion of her choice is
explicitly protected in our public schools, precisely by the restrictions
which dismay you? There were some serious arguments there which it seems to
me you are basically treating like hot potatos. So are we dropping all that
now? (That's okay with me; I have a lot of patience for these discussions.)
Anyway . . . I *get* that this paying twice thing feels unfair and sometimes
is unfair - and I can as well acknowledge that since I *don't* desire
religious education for my child, perhaps I do not feel this particular
double burden as bitterly as some people. (Though I do, certainly, relate to
the feeling that the public schools owe me something they aren't providing.)
You asked me, previously, how could it be fair that I can get (tax-funded)
the type of education (nonreligious) that I want for my child and you cannot
get the specific type of religious education you want. I gave a fairly
detailed reply on this subject too but you got offended about something
again, forget what it was that time. I'd still be curious about what in my
arguments there was unpersuasive.
There's one other important piece missing so far in the "public schools -
why should I have to pay for them if I'm not using them" argument. Public
schools aren't just for the kids in them or the families of the kids in
them. If this "why should I have to pay" argument were legitimate, why would
*anyone* without kids in public schools have to pay for them? Retired folks?
Parents of grown children? Parents of infants who aren't using the school
*yet*? Single folks, childless folks. Homeschooling families. People who
hate kids and wish other people wouldn't breed. How about parents who lost a
child? Ack -painful to make them pay for other people's kids! Should all
these people be galled at having to pay for schools? People who only live
somewhere part of the year. People with their kids in private schools????
We all have a stake in and are "using" public education regardless of
whether we have children in school. At the very least, our stake in a
literate society. That, Abd, is why we all pay for them. (It is not simply,
like, it's cheaper to educate them in bulk.)
This argument could be developed in great detail but surely it is not
unfamiliar to you. (The kids grow up and run the society?)
In a very important sense, the only way you are bearing an unjust double
burden is if the public schools are doing a very poor job with their basic
mission. Now, of course, that is often the case and that's the reason people
who can afford private schools often use them. Another reason is they want
religious education. In the former case, IMO, they have a legitimate
complaint, and in the latter case they do not. In that case the "I'm being
double-charged" argument does not apply - because, very simply, the
government doesn't owe you a religious education or environment for your
child, just not part of our deal, our social contract, in the US. Public
education has lots of social value and purposes (and I could expand this at
length as well; one of its values is teaching people all about other
religions! and teaching people of varying religious faiths the value of the
secular sphere, tolerance, peaceful cooperation, this being a less vivid
experience in a school where you don't have the varying religious faiths).
You can well complain if the public schools aren't fulfilling some of their
purposes, and they surely aren't. But providing religious content isn't one
of their legitimate social purposes. You are paying for a social good,
something collectively socially desirable (and surely "day care" is *not*
high on the list of its noble purposes, that is pretty cynical).
Diana
)The point is that public schools teach, say, arithmetic. A private
)religious school teaches arithmetic. If I send my child to a private school
)because of *other* things that the private school teaches, that are not
)taught in the public schools, then, of course, there is no double payment.
)However, public schools perform two functions at public expense that are
)also performed by private schools: they provide a basic education and they
)provide supervised child care. Private school parents are paying twice for
)these functions, once with the taxes that support public schools, and again
)with the tuition that supports the private school.
)However, if a voucher were issued to parents [or to qualified schools], and
)the amount of the voucher represented the incremental cost of educating a
)child in the public school system, transfer of this voucher to a private
)school would not injure the public schools, yet it would reduce the unjust
)double burden.
)As I pointed out, I thought clearly, this would *not* represent public
)funding of religious education; rather it would represent public funding of
)education meeting public standards. Religious schools would be only one of
)many kinds of schools which would benefit.
)There is only one fly in the ointment that I can see. Private schools
)represent, at present, a hidden subsidy for the public schools (or, more
)accurately, for the public treasury). Issuance of vouchers would be
)effectively eliminating a double tax. Elimination of any tax reduces tax
)revenues, thus creating a potential budget shortfall. The problem is not
)from potential enrollment increase in private schools due to the
)implementation of a voucher system, but from *existing* private schools, as
)parents with children in those schools start to pay tuition costs, that
)they previously paid out-of-pocket, with vouchers. The existing system has
)a built-in inertia which will make changes difficult, even if they come to
)be seen as desirable.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:50:43 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: "No religion" is really just another religion?
I would just be tickled if Abd would answer the following . . .
I've been thinking more about Abd's argument that even if "no religion" is
established as preference in public schools, that's "religion" too . . . I'd
like to see Abd defend it rather than whine that I ridiculed it.
Abd, your complaint, apparently, is not that there is no religion in public
schools. Your complaint is that it's not the religion you think it should
be. You demonstrat