return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:58:10 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
Hey Sharon - nice to see you return - looks like you can't leave this
subject alone after all. In reference to the Amicus Curiae (Friend of the
Court) brief by the Anthroposophical Society in America, you make some good
points.
Gary has posted this fascinating brief at the PLANS site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles.html#Lawsuit
and it deserves a good read, IMO.
Sharon wrote:
"It will be fascinating to see how that is argued. I suppose they
could argue "We are not a religion because we are a cult i.e.., a religion
in
the making" (sarcasm). As far as I know, there is no legal definition of
religion in US law so Anthroposophist lawyers may well have figured out a
good argument. I can't wait to hear it. For me, watching that argument will
be more of a thrill than watching the World Cup games."
Yes, it will be interesting though I don't think you need the sarcasm in
your line of thinking.
I think you are simply right. The problem is one of semantics. The word
"cult" is a loaded
and problematic word thanks to the likes of Jonestown, etc. I think it fits
but I understand the negative *feel* of the word so would be willing to try
"NRM"
(New Religious Movement) to describe Anthroposophy. I think the big
question regarding the suit is more about the intent of the amendment in the
Constitution.
Sharon wrote: "Religion scholars
have some basic tests to determine if something is a religion, they'll
usually ask whether the group has worship, reverence, community, rituals,
promise of life after death, doctrine, belief in supernatural
beings....those kinds of things. If I was PLANS' lawyers I'd take in as many
Steiner books as possible with titles like "Christianity as Mystical Fact",
"Knowledge of Higher Worlds", "Reincarnation and Karma: Two Fundamental
Truths of Human Existence", "Outline of Occult Science"....actually I'd try
to take in all 360 Steiner books because virtually every single one is an
expression of Steiner's religious worldview published by Anthroposophic
Presses. I'd also take in religion encyclopedias and I'd find me a religion
professor who would argue that it is a religion because of things like
"doctrine".
I would be surprised if scholars of religion with some knowledge of
Anthroposophy (and not themselves Anthroposophists) would have a hard time
describing it as a "religion" or religious belief system. Dictionaries
describe it as such. What's the problem - really?
The court will need to look at the *intent* of the amendment and whether
Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy schools violate that intent. Should American
citizens be forced to pay for a system of education based on incarnating
souls and creating a "campaign for a new social order?" No, they should
not. IMO.
From the Anthroposophical Society in Florida...
"Steiner (to the first Waldorf teachers) 'We shall only be able to achieve
our task if we see it as not only to do with the intellect and feeling-life,
but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in the highest sense.' The
task was the following: to help the soul-and-spirit being of the child,
which has at birth descended to earth from a pre-earthly existence, to find
its place in the physical world and to make it competent for life . . . .
Rudolf Steiner shows how the developing human being on the long and arduous
path into the physical world passes through a series of clearly defined
stages, which make definite inner and outer demands. Both the curriculum and
the methods of teaching of the new school, as he now described them, were
designed to meet these demands as well as possible through the right
pedagogical measures . . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The campaign for a new
social order had been especially well received in the big Waldorf Astoria
cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
I hope the PLANS lawyers have plenty of these types of quotes (and Sharon
provided some below) to show something honest and real to the judge as
opposed to the stuff presented in the Anthropop brief which describes
anthroposophy as a "cognitive methodology, a path to knowledge." When the
authors of the brief attempt a comparison with Dewey or Montessori with
Steiner's version of education (vis a vis the Constitution) I cannot help
but wonder if anyone will keep a straight face?
How will they explain Eugene Schwartz and his honest explanation of Waldorf
education...or the mandatory morning prayer or the reality of Eurythmy?
Etc.
- Walden
Steiner: "Those who have not entered the sphere of anthroposophical life
need a special preparation of their souls and hearts as well as the
constitution of soul belonging to the present age. Such preparation can be
acquired only through the life and activities in our groups and meetings.
There we adapt ourselves to a certain trend of thinking and feeling, so that
we realize the significance of matters that people in the outside world who
know nothing of anthroposophy will naturally regard as fantastic nonsense.
It might of course, be argued that anthroposophy could also be made more
widely known through public lectures given to entirely unprepared listeners;
but those who belong to our groups in a more intimate sense will realize
that the whole tone, the whole manner of delivering a lecture to an
unprepared public must necessarily be different from that of a lecture given
to those who through an inner urge and through their whole attitude, are
able to take seriously what the general public would not yet be able to
accept. Quite certainly this stage of things will not improve the immediate
future--on the contrary, the opposition will become stronger and stronger.
Opposition to anthroposophy in every domain will increase in the outside
world, just because it is in the highest degree necessary for our age, and
because what is the most essential at any particular time always encounters
the strongest resistance.
It may be asked: Why is this so? Why do human hearts resist so vehemently
just what is most needed in their epoch? An anthroposophist should be able
to understand this, but it is too complicated a matter to be made even
remotely clear to an unprepared public.
The student of anthroposophy knows of the existence of luciferic forces, of
luciferic beings who have lagged behind the general process of evolution."
(P. 85-86 Reincarnation and Karma: Two Fundamental Truths of Human
Existence, First English publication 1960. Anthroposophic Press, 1992).
Steiner: "In the next lecture I shall be able to speak more fully of what
can only be indicated today; for this is how a great initiate of modern
times tests those whom he thinks fit to be his followers. For the events
that are to take us into the spiritual world proceed from spiritual facts
that happen around us, or from a right understanding of them. And such a
voice, calling as it does to many people, is not to be regarded as a
hallucination; for through such a voice the leader whom we call by the name
of Christian Rosenkreutz speaks to those whom he chooses from among the
multitude to be his followers. The call proceeds from that individuality who
lived in a special incarnation in the thirteenth century. So that those who
have an experience of this kind have a sign, a token of recognition, through
which they can enter the spiritual world (p 41, Reincarnation and Karma: Two
Fundamental Truths of Human Existence, First English publication 1960.
Anthroposophic Press, 1992).
Sharon: When I read Steiner I feel like Mike feels about "Servant of the
Merciful".
PS: Another important case to watch is Freedom From Religion Foundation
versus Towey, Ashcroft, and Thompson. This suit challenges Bush's creation
of federal offices for faith-based initiatives.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply now for a No-Annual-Fee Discover® Platinum Card
0% Intro APR*, No Annual Fee, Up to 2% Cashback Bonus®
award* Start Saving Today - APPLY NOW! It's fast, easy and
secure.
http://click.topica.com/caacpgwb1dkiGb2QZUTf/DiscoverCard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1422
-- Topica Digest --
first Waldorf school in China planned
By dan dandugan.com
a Waldorf graduate's Biography
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By dan dandugan.com
Re: free choice of religion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: first Waldorf school in China planned
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:26:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: first Waldorf school in China planned
Alternative preschool closes
BY MICHAEL PETROCELLI, The Herald-Sun
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-506595.html
July 30, 2004 9:18 pm
DURHAM -- FOR RENT: Two-story Ninth Street house
with pentagonal sandbox, hut made of climbing
vines and two treehouses.
For a decade, the house was home not only to
Tammy Hughes and her family but also to scads of
3- to 5-year-olds who attended the Waldorf
preschool Hughes ran out of her living room and
her well-appointed back yard each day.
The school will not reopen this fall, however,
because Hughes is heading to China, where she
will help open that country's first school
practicing the alternative teaching method.
Hughes opened the Briar Rose Preschool in 1994 to
teach her son Lynden in the Waldorf method and
served about 10 students a year. Waldorf schools
emphasize teaching the whole child, promoting
individualism and de-emphasizing academics in the
early years.
Last week, Hughes was trying to distribute her
piles of toys and teaching tools to some of the
other Waldorf preschools in the area. Books,
clothes, dolls, crayons and sundry other items
clogged the rooms, the porch and the front lawn
of the house as Hughes, 41, sought to dismantle
the trappings of her life in North Carolina.
This week, she, her husband, Ian and Lynden set
off for their new lives. They plan to reach their
destination in September, traveling through
Europe and riding the Trans-Siberian Railway
across Russia and Mongolia to Beijing.
From there, they will make their way to Chengdu,
the capital of Sichuan province in China's
southwest, where the school will open this fall
in an old resort hotel on the city's outskirts.
The family will live in some of the hotel's 35
rooms.
The first Waldorf school began in Germany in
1919, and there are now several hundred around
the world, including in Asia. But, until now,
none of the schools were in China.
To Hughes, Waldorf education is about giving
children freedom, which is part of the reason
that helping to open a school in China appeals to
her.
"It's an exciting thing to have in China, where
there hasn't been a lot of freedom," she said.
At the same time, the Waldorf philosophy, which
is based on Christianity but also incorporates
elements of eastern religions, could be
threatening to Chinese authorities. The school
may have to disguise some of its methods publicly
to avoid the kind of suspicions that led Chinese
authorities to crack down on movements like Falun
Gong, a practice built around a physical
discipline similar to tai chi, she said.
"It's like a double life," Hughes said, "but who
doesn't lead a double life when a government is
corrupt."
The new life will be hard, especially if her son
ends up attending high school in husband Ian's
native New Zealand, as she expects. But the work,
she said, is important enough to merit the
sacrifice.
"If your calling is strong enough, that's what you need to follow," she said.
Gay Weaver, an Old West Durham resident whose son
Eli attended Briar Rose for two years, described
Hughes as a "kind, loving presence" who would
sing instructions to her students rather than
merely telling them.
"I never for an instant worried about my child
while he was in her care," she said.
Eli, 5, will be attending kindergarten at the
Emerson Waldorf School in Chapel Hill this year,
but Weaver said she regrets the school's closing
nonetheless.
"I just feel such a sense of loss that she is not
in my neighborhood, helping to nurture other
people's children," she said.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-506595.html
(c) Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. All
material on heraldsun.com is copyrighted by The
Durham Herald Company and may not be reproduced
or redistributed in any medium except as provided
in the site's Terms of Use.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:37:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: a Waldorf graduate's Biography
I've finished reading *Ingredients for the Making of a Woman* by
Suzanna Saumarez. Margaret Sachs was correct to characterize the book
as a vanity publication; it's an amateurish work with little literary
value. It's of interest to us here, however, because it's the
autobiography of a Waldorf student whose mother was a true believer
in Anthroposophy.
Saumarez conceals actual names and places, but it appears that she
went to Michael Hall in Sussex, associated with the Waldorf teacher
training Emerson College, which she calls "William Morris College."
She grew up in the insular Steiner community around the college. Her
vivid tales of rampant way-too-young sex and drug use are a powerful
indictment of laissez-faire childrearing.
Despite being a skeptic and a troublemaker at school, she accepts
much of the Anthroposophical world-view as given.
I'll post some quotes from the book in this and subsequent messages.
When she was in kindergarten:
*** start quotation (p. 23)
"O Michael the victorious
I make my circuit under thy shield
O Michael of the white steed
and of the bright brilliant blade
conqueror of the dragon
be thou at my back, thou ranger of the heavens
thou warrier of the king of all
O Michael the victorious, my pride and my guide
O Michael the victorious, the glory of mine eye."
We are celebrating Michaelmas day. The sky is both light and dark,
and the wind blusters through the falling leaves as they cascade,
yellow, brown and gold. It's a mighty day. I am inspired and
enraptured by the fiery figure, liquid light, of the archangel
Michael. I see him, armed to the teeth, with stars in his hair, God
at his side, and all the forces of good around him, slaying the
cringing, crawling, bloodthirsty dragon of evil and darkness. I too
will fight like St Michael; and I do.
Every morning I wake up and decide to be good, really good, like St
Michael. I'm usually in trouble by breakfast, though.
*** end quotation
[Saumarez, Suzanna. Ingredients for the Making of a Woman. Princeton,
NJ: Xlibris Corporation, 2003.]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 21:27:43 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Here, at last, is an answer to Akua's question about the German original for
the quotes I posted from Steiner's book The Universal Human. The passages
are from Steiner's lecture in Bern on January 9, 1916, which appears in GA
volume 165, Die geistigie Vereinigung der Menschheit durch den
Christus-Impuls. The version I quoted is the most recent English edition,
published by the Anthroposophic Presss in 1990.
Peter S.
))Peter,
))
))would you mind giving me the German title of the book in question, Rudolf
))Steiner, The Universal Human?
))
))Thanks, Akua
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 06:29:11 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
I was pleased to see a few responses to the article I posted from Richard
Dawkins. However nobody addressed the fundamental issue, and presumably
there are people posting here who do disagree with Dawkins on this issue of
assuming children will take up the religion of their families and culture.
Are there any comments?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer:
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=225&referral=Hotmail_tagline_July04&URL=http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;9681905;p?http://www.foxtel.com.au/2231.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:10:25 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
Some rich language in the Anthroposophical Society's amicus curiae brief:
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective.
Ah, yes, as it says in the disclaimers, no one who hasn't had
Anthroposophical training is qualified to criticize Anthroposophy.
"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical farrago
that plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is not the
kind of business that the Court should be about."
Hmm, telling a federal court that they have no business deciding a
church/state issue. The judge will love that.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:41:23 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Peter Farrel wrote:
"I was pleased to see a few responses to the article I posted from Richard
Dawkins. However nobody addressed the fundamental issue, and presumably
there are people posting here who do disagree with Dawkins on this issue of
assuming children will take up the religion of their families and culture.
Are there any comments?"
Hi Peter,
I enjoyed the article and agree with Richard Dawkins. Except where he seems
at odds with his own argument and states:
"For parents to influence their children's opinions and beliefs is
inevitable and proper."
Inevitable? Perhaps. Proper. Not in my opinion. I cringe when I hear my
kids parroting my views while chatting with their peers... until I realize
we actually *share* some views and they actually *do* believe in what they
are saying. I was never even comfortable seeing fellow enviro activists
dragging their kids along to the protest, knowing the cameras would use a
cute kid with a sign for the 6 o'clock news. So...
No, I do not agree that children should be expected to take up the religion
of their parents - neither do I agree that children should be forced or
expected to attend the church of their parents choice. I don't know what an
appropriate age of consent should be but I do think good honest
communication between all family members - and respect every which way - is
essential for healthy growth.
The dilemma, it seems, revolves around the democratic rights of the child in
the family/community/society. For some it is as simple as Mom and/or Dad
working to put food on the table and the kids eat what is there, attend the
school of the parents' choice and watch football with Dad on Sunday...
"because." For others it involves plenty of interesting discussions about
flavours of food, education and TV programs, etc. Can you guess where our
family is yet?! BTW, I occasionally ask my kids if they'd like to attend a
church service and I try not to *dump* on any religious path. I do
question those paths. There's a difference. If my kids asked to attend a
Christian Community service, however, I might try to dissuade them only
because of our Waldorf experience and the confusion and hurt that came from
that era. The wounds are still relatively fresh and even though a couple of
well intentioned Anthroposophists suggested we check out the Christian
Community I would do my democratic best to steer my kids away.
Waldorf is problematic either way as neither the parents nor the kids
usually have a clue as to the nature of the beast. At least my Catholic
friends know that at their children's Catholic school the kids will learn
lots about Catholicism (as well as other world religions) and that 2 +2=4.
At Waldorf schools it can take years for parents to understand St. Michael
and the Morning "Verse" and Eurythmy *and* that 2+2 is not the question...
because 4=2+2. Etc.
Thanks for the article.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:07:54 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: first Waldorf school in China planned
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Alternative preschool closes
)
) BY MICHAEL PETROCELLI, The Herald-Sun
) http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-506595.html
)
) July 30, 2004 9:18 pm
)
)) "It's an exciting thing to have in China, where
) there hasn't been a lot of freedom," she said.
)
) At the same time, the Waldorf philosophy, which
) is based on Christianity but also incorporates
) elements of eastern religions, could be
) threatening to Chinese authorities. The school
) may have to disguise some of its methods publicly
) to avoid the kind of suspicions that led Chinese
) authorities to crack down on movements like Falun
) Gong, a practice built around a physical
) discipline similar to tai chi, she said.
)
) "It's like a double life," Hughes said, "but who
) doesn't lead a double life when a government is
) corrupt."
)
So here we have it: a tacit admission that the host society (China, of
which I know little or nothing other than it's aproach probably wouldn't
fit where I (we?) live) *will* be subject to deception.
Perhaps His (or Her) Honour to preside over the PLANS case would be
interested in this too, as well as Dan's eager anticipation that His
Honour is to be appraised of the fact that he is incompetent to occupy
the bench on any matter Waldorf.
I wonder if we have a duty of responsibility to forward the Sun-Herald
article to China? To prevent us all winding up with a bad name.
Davy
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1423
-- Topica Digest --
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
Wandin Springs
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By lioncell gmx.net
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Steiner on skin color and race
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner on skin color and race
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner on skin color and race
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Steiner on racial diversity
By lioncell gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:39:25 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective."
The judge may be irritated by this haughty language, and the peculiar notion
that introducing "documents" in a court case is somehow amiss. A "circus." A
hundred documents, Dan? Of all the nerve :)
The judge will probably not realize, though, how peculiarly anthroposophic
this seeming allergy to documented evidence is.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:50:17 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Walden said:
)I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views while chatting with their
)peers... until I realize we actually *share* some views and they actually
)*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never even comfortable seeing
)fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along to the protest, knowing
)the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for the 6 o'clock news. So...
I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs too.
Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the indoctrination my child
*hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a storm was coming on, the
sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting, dramatic cloud
formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks like Judgment Day out
there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?" I smile to myself, I've
done a *few* things right in parenting :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:55:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
And I *don't* offer to drive him to church now and then. :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:06:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Just couldn't resist jumping in here with an anecdote that is relevant.
Last spring (I hope my timing is correct on this .... I may be in error her! (g)) a friend of mine decided one weekend morning to take his five year old son on a day trip to Washington D.C.'s Smithsonian museum. (Like me, they live in a suburb of Baltimore.) As the father-son pair got off the Metro, they found themselves in the midst of a huge crowd of mostly women, who had come to the nation's capital that day to let the Bush administration know they supported abortion rights. My friend took his son's hand to lead him away from the crowd and toward the natural science museum (dinosaurs were the goal!) when a woman waving a big sign approached them.
"Wow, it's great to see a father bringing his son to the protest to stand up for a woman's right to choose!" she said, smiling broadly.
"Well, actually, ma'am, I brought my son here to stand up for his right to see a stegosaurus," he said.
We laughed about this encounter later, but both of us agreed there was something disturbing not just about the woman's assumptions (you know what they say about assuming? (BWG)), but also about the many people who *do* bring and I would contend, use, their children in protests of any kind. I am equally ill at ease when I see kids wielding "Choose Life" signs from their strollers as I am kids in backpacks with "Pro Child, Pro Family, Pro Choice" bumper stickers adorning the child carriers.
Though it is certainly our job as parents to guide our children and teach them what we think is important in the world, I think taking really young kids (kids too young to really form their own opinions) to these kinds of things is just not a great idea.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Sent: Aug 2, 2004 10:50 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgtb1dkiGb1IpcOa/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walden said:
)I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views while chatting with their
)peers... until I realize we actually *share* some views and they actually
)*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never even comfortable seeing
)fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along to the protest, knowing
)the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for the 6 o'clock news. So...
I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs too.
Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the indoctrination my child
*hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a storm was coming on, the
sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting, dramatic cloud
formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks like Judgment Day out
there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?" I smile to myself, I've
done a *few* things right in parenting :)
Diana
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save up to 67% on Omaha Steaks + Get 6 FREE Burgers and a
FREE Cutlery Set + Cutting Board!
http://click.topica.com/caacvgpb1dkiGb1IpcOf/OmahaSteaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:21:32 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
Revisiting this . . .
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective."
Gosh, I sure hope the court does engage in hypotheses and interpretations!
That's its job. "Innuendoes" doesn't seem to belong in that category, but
when anthroposophists see Rudolf Steiner criticized, or any of their good
works reconsidered skeptically, it's all the same as far as they're
concerned. Right up there with PLANS' brash request that the court look at
"documents."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:23:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Walden wrote:
)If my kids asked to attend a Christian Community service, however, I might
)try to dissuade them only because of our Waldorf experience and the
)confusion and hurt that came from that era.
Someone here (defending anthroposophy) once asked me what I would do if my
son some day announces he's going to marry an anthroposophist. They were
trying to show everyone how narrow-minded I am. I think they were sure I
would have a cow, disown my son, tell him terrible things about
anthroposophists, refuse to attend the wedding, perhaps demand the children
be raised as skeptics, or kidnap them away from the evil influence of
anthroposophy . . . I replied that while I would be personally really not
thrilled about such a development, I would certainly welcome the person into
the family and do my very best to develop a good relationship with them. I
think I would have to try to smile politely and remain silent if the wedding
guests were all asked to recite Steiner verses :) (I would be really
fascinated to learn the details of an anthroposophic weddding, if there is
such a thing. Unfortunately, anthroposophic child rearing I already know all
about.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:24:32 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: Wandin Springs
I finally have to hand a hard copy of the 1992 report by Victoria
(Australia) agencies into this Anthro centre. I do hope the report will
be more widely available soon, but in the meantime the foloowing extract
might be of some interest:
"Several people providing statements displayed considerable anxiety
about the possibility of their information being released to the
Committee of Management or management staff of Wandin Springs.Two
parents expressed concern in writing as to whether their son would
receive unfavourable treatment if it became apparent that they had
spoken to the investigators. Several staff expressed fear of losing
their jobs and alleged that other staff had been forced to resign having
conflicted with management. Some former staff feared retaliation.."**
The report was compiled by Community Services Victoria under the aegis
of the Intellectually Disabled Persons Services Act. I earnestly urge
anyone on this list concerned with Special Needs care and "therapy" as
offered by anthroposophy to obtain for themselves a copy of this report
as a blueprint of how *not* to go about delivering the care you are
entrusted with.
I can anticipate accusations coming along, but it is intended to try to
*help* anthroposophy come out of the closet, because, really, thats all
critics seek.
Davy
**Report of the Investigation into Wandin Springs Private Training
Centre, Community Services Victoria, Melbourne, 1992. p12
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 22:00:38 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Here, at last, is an answer to Akua's question about the German
original for the quotes I posted from Steiner's book The Universal
Human. The passages are from Steiner's lecture in Bern on January 9,
1916, which appears in GA volume 165, Die geistigie Vereinigung der
Menschheit durch den Christus-Impuls. The version I quoted is the most
recent English edition, published by the Anthroposophic Presss in 1990.
Peter S.
Thanks a lot for the information, Peter!
I think you also cited the following Steiner quotation:
"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing
but a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe.”
I know this quotation but cannot recall from which book the quotation is
taken. Could you, Peter, or anyone else help me with it?
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:35:03 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Hi Akua,
)I think you also cited the following Steiner quotation:
)
)"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing but
)a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe.”
)
)I know this quotation but cannot recall from which book the quotation is
)taken. Could you, Peter, or anyone else help me with it?
That's from GA 349, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde (Dornach 1993), p.
53. The original reads: "Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und es ist
natürlich nur ein Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große Rolle
spielt." This entire 1923 lecture, which carries the title "Farbe und
Menschenrassen" ("Color and the Races of Humankind") was excised from the
otherwise complete English translation of the book it appeared in: Rudolf
Steiner, From Limestone to Lucifer, Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1999. Its
contents were evidently something of an embarrassment to English-speaking
anthroposophists -- yet more evidence that anthroposophists are the most
reliable authorities about their own doctrines.... I will post a selection
of quotes from this chapter shortly.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to ‘Dig Yourself Out of Debt’ from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:52:05 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner on skin color and race
Here are a few more passages from Steiner's 1923 lecture in Dornach on
"Color and the Races of Humankind", the one that somehow didn't make it into
the English edition of the book it appears in. There is, by the way, no
notice of this omission in the English translation of the book, apart from a
vague allusion on the copyright page. I have translated these passages from
the original: Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde.
Steiner begins the lecture by re-affirming the central importance of race to
a proper understanding of spiritual reality:
"One can only understand history and all of social life, including today's
social life, if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And
one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one
first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the color of their skin." (p. 52)
He then moves on to an overview of the various racial groups on the earth
today, offering very definite instruction about which races belong where:
"We here in Europe call ourselves the white race. If we go over to Asia, we
have mostly the yellow race. And if we go over to Africa, there we have the
black race. Those are also the original races. Everything else living in
these regions is based on migration. Thus when we ask which race belongs to
which part of the earth, we must say: the yellow race, the Mongols, the
Mongolian race belongs in Asia, the white race or the Caucasian race belongs
in Europe, and the black race or the Negro race belongs in Africa. The Negro
race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that this
race is now playing such a large role in Europe." (pp. 52-53)
Having laid the groundwork for his racial theory, Steiner embarks on an
extended disquisition on the distinctive features of each race, complete
with drawings to illustrate the physiological and mental differences among
black, yellow, and white racial groups. He reports that black people are
distinguished by their "rear-brain", yellow and brown people by their
"mid-brain", and white people by their "fore-brain", adding that black
people are marked by a powerful "instinctual life", yellow and brown people
by a potent "emotional life", and white people by a highly developed
"intellectual life". (p. 56) Steiner goes into considerable physical detail
about black people in particular:
"Let us look first at the blacks in Africa. These blacks in Africa have the
peculiar characteristic that they absorb all light and all warmth from
space. They take it in. And this light and warmth cannot penetrate through
the whole body, because after all a person is always a person, even if he is
black. It does not penetrate through the whole body, but lingers on the
surface of the skin, and the skin itself thus turns black. So a black in
Africa is therefore a person who absorbs as much warmth and light as
possible from space and assimilates it within himself. In this way the
energies of the cosmos affect the whole person. Everywhere he takes in light
and warmth, everywhere. He assimilates it inside of himself. There must be
something there that helps him in this assimilation. Now you see, what helps
him in this assimilation is his rear-brain. In the Negro the rear-brain is
therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal cord. And this is
able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are inside a person.
Therefore everything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly
developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives,
powerful instincts. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. And because
he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body surface, in his skin,
his whole metabolism operates as if he were being cooked inside by the sun.
That is where his instinctual life comes from. The Negro is constantly
cooking inside, and what feeds this fire is his rear-brain." (p. 55)
Steiner continues his series of racial contrasts by examining purported
differences between Asians and Europeans regarding technology. He claims
unconditionally that "Europe has always been the starting point for
everything that develops humanity in relation to the external world," while
"the Asians are incapable" of making inventions or technological discoveries
on their own – for that matter, Asians are incapable of even using European
inventions properly, according to Steiner. He tells his audience that this
is a matter of "natural disposition", and asserts without qualification:
"Very few inventions have been made in Asia. They can assemble things, but
as for inventions themselves, that is, that which arises from experience
with the external world, the Asians cannot do this." (p. 59)
After offering what he takes to be a humorous anecdote about Asian
technological ignorance, Steiner summarizes:
"This sort of independent thinking which Europeans develop in dealing with
their surroundings, the Asians do not have this. The Japanese will therefore
follow all the European inventions, but they will never think up something
on their own." (p. 59)
Expounding on the capacities of "the white race" to explore and inhabit all
parts of the globe, Steiner makes the apodictic pronouncement: "The whites
are the ones who actually develop humanity in themselves." (p. 62) He
presents this and his other claims about racial difference as a set of
objective spiritual facts, meant to impress upon his white audience the need
for mutual understanding and interracial cooperation, based on recognition
of the "natural dispositions" that mark each racial group. At the conclusion
of the lecture, Steiner offers a synopsis of his racial teachings:
"Thus it is really very interesting: on the one hand there is the black
race, which is the most earthly. When this race goes toward the West, it
dies out. Then there is the yellow race, in the middle between the earth and
the cosmos. When this race goes toward the East, it turns brown, it attaches
itself too much to the cosmos and dies out. The white race is the race of
the future, the spiritually creative race. [Die weiße Rasse is die
zukünftige, ist die am Geiste schaffende Rasse.]" (p. 67)
As always, I encourage anybody, particularly those anthroposophists who
consider themselves well situated to put such teachings in accurate
perspective, to comment on these passages from Steiner.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:46:04 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner on skin color and race
Hi Peter S,
Thanks (I think) for the Steiner quotes. Shame some of these tidbits don't
make it into the English editions. Most of the more meaningful quotes never
make to parent evenings, either. Hard to see the picture when the puzzle
pieces are constantly rearranged. Strange - all the easily digestible
quotes appear again and again and again at school meetings, leaving parents
lulled into a sense of ignorant bliss, content that maybe Steiner really was
a harmless artist, scientist, educator... whatever.
Question: In your experience, is history often fraught with convenient
mistranslations or omissions from one text to another - or are
Anthroposophical *slips* an anomaly?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:03:31 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on skin color and race
walden asks of Peter S
)
)Question: In your experience, is history often fraught with convenient
)mistranslations or omissions from one text to another - or are
)Anthroposophical *slips* an anomaly?
Peter F responds with:
Something similar appears to happen with Freud for reasons which may be
similar. A brief introduction may be found at
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=21&subject=Freud
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Smart Saving with ING Direct – earn 5.25% p.a. variable rate:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;7249209;8842331;n?http://www.ingdirect.com.au/burst6offer.asp?id=8
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:43:52 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial diversity
Akua:
I think you also cited the following Steiner quotation:
"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing
but a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe.”
I know this quotation but cannot recall from which book the quotation is
taken. Could you, Peter, or anyone else help me with it?
Peter Staudenmaier responded:
That's from GA 349, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde (Dornach 1993),
p. 53. The original reads: "Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und
es ist natürlich nur ein Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große
Rolle spielt." This entire 1923 lecture, which carries the title "Farbe
und Menschenrassen" ("Color and the Races of Humankind") was excised
from the otherwise complete English translation of the book it appeared
in: Rudolf Steiner, From Limestone to Lucifer, Rudolf Steiner Press,
London 1999. Its contents were evidently something of an embarrassment
to English-speaking anthroposophists -- yet more evidence that
anthroposophists are the most reliable authorities about their own
doctrines.... I will post a selection of quotes from this chapter shortly.
Thanks, Peter, that'll be of help. Thanks also for the additional quotes
in your post "Steiner on skin color and race" some of which I already
knew, some of which I had previously been unfamiliar with.
Akua
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1424
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner and racism
By t.d.h optusnet.com.au
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in
Lawsuit
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re:
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Steiner on the races of mankind
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By diana.winters verizon.net
Admin: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
By dan dandugan.com
Re: free choice of religion
By dan dandugan.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By dan dandugan.com
qualms with translations
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: free choice of religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: free choice of religion
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: free choice of religion
By dan dandugan.com
RE: free choice of religion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:28:00 +0930
From: "Tom Howes" (t.d.h optusnet.com.au)
Subject: Steiner and racism
I have read that Steiner has in the past been 'in trouble' for his supposed
racist influences in his education ("The Dutch Report"). My daughter still
goes to Sat morning Anthro 'art' classes (insistence of ex partner and
totally against my wishes) and she came back with a beauty the other day.
Here is exactly what she relayed to me. Her story telling that morning
began with the tale of a woman with a hard working daughter and a lazy
daughter (this correlates with the bible story in the Old Testament of the
man with one hard working son and one lazy son, who gives them a chance to
prove themselves - the good son doing well and being profitable, and the bad
son making unwise decisions and coming out with nothing). The hard working
daughter lost something down a well one day and her mother sent her down to
find it. She found a mystical kingdom of lush green meadows, talking trees
and animals and poor people that needed help etc, and ended up doing good
deeds and bringing home gold for her mother. The mother gave the lazy
daughter a chance to redeem herself by bringing home gold for the family and
sent her to the well to look down it. The lazy daughter found herself in
the same mystical kingdom; however she refused to help any person or animal
and brought home no gold, but was instead covered in black tar and was told
that she would be black for the rest of her life. The end (or moral) of the
story was that naughty people will be black and good people will be pure,
hardworking and white. What do you think of that? I know what I think! This
is exactly how my 7 yr old relayed it to me.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
Mr. Staudenmeier,
You recently posted your translations of some Steiner.
I'm wondering if it would be convenient for you to
post the German original in its entirety as I am
conversant in German as well, and would be most
interested.
Vielen Dank,
Chris
(P.S. apologies for responding to digest format)
--- waldorf-critics topica.com wrote:
) -- Topica Digest --
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By momof2gals mindspring.com
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) Wandin Springs
) By jaquesdm msn.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Steiner on skin color and race
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By awaldenpond shaw.ca
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By feetapparel hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
)
------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:39:25 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical
) Society's brief
)
)
)
)
) "Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their
) intention to
) introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to
) which they hope
) to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court.
) While the
) Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the
) kind of circus of
) hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that
) plaintiff is
) apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly
) interested that such
) "evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the
) entity best
) situated to put it in accurate perspective."
)
) The judge may be irritated by this haughty language,
) and the peculiar notion
) that introducing "documents" in a court case is
) somehow amiss. A "circus." A
) hundred documents, Dan? Of all the nerve :)
)
) The judge will probably not realize, though, how
) peculiarly anthroposophic
) this seeming allergy to documented evidence is.
) Diana
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:50:17 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Walden said:
)
) )I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views
) while chatting with their
) )peers... until I realize we actually *share* some
) views and they actually
) )*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never
) even comfortable seeing
) )fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along
) to the protest, knowing
) )the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for
) the 6 o'clock news. So...
)
)
) I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs
) too.
)
) Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the
) indoctrination my child
) *hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a
) storm was coming on, the
) sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting,
) dramatic cloud
) formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks
) like Judgment Day out
) there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?"
) I smile to myself, I've
) done a *few* things right in parenting :)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:55:20 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
)
)
) And I *don't* offer to drive him to church now and
) then. :)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:06:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
) From: momof2gals mindspring.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Just couldn't resist jumping in here with an
) anecdote that is relevant.
)
) Last spring (I hope my timing is correct on this
) .... I may be in error her! (g)) a friend of mine
) decided one weekend morning to take his five year
) old son on a day trip to Washington D.C.'s
) Smithsonian museum. (Like me, they live in a suburb
) of Baltimore.) As the father-son pair got off the
) Metro, they found themselves in the midst of a huge
) crowd of mostly women, who had come to the nation's
) capital that day to let the Bush administration know
) they supported abortion rights. My friend took his
) son's hand to lead him away from the crowd and
) toward the natural science museum (dinosaurs were
) the goal!) when a woman waving a big sign approached
) them.
) "Wow, it's great to see a father bringing his son to
) the protest to stand up for a woman's right to
) choose!" she said, smiling broadly.
) "Well, actually, ma'am, I brought my son here to
) stand up for his right to see a stegosaurus," he
) said.
) We laughed about this encounter later, but both of
) us agreed there was something disturbing not just
) about the woman's assumptions (you know what they
) say about assuming? (BWG)), but also about the many
) people who *do* bring and I would contend, use,
) their children in protests of any kind. I am equally
) ill at ease when I see kids wielding "Choose Life"
) signs from their strollers as I am kids in backpacks
) with "Pro Child, Pro Family, Pro Choice" bumper
) stickers adorning the child carriers.
) Though it is certainly our job as parents to guide
) our children and teach them what we think is
) important in the world, I think taking really young
) kids (kids too young to really form their own
) opinions) to these kinds of things is just not a
) great idea.
) Lisa
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
) Sent: Aug 2, 2004 10:50 AM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
=== message truncated ===
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:26:44 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
At 08:17 AM 7/29/2004, Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
)on 7/28/04 10:43 PM, abd lomaxdesign.com at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
)
) )
) ) Just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of
) ) religious schools. Rather, I'm in favor of allowing *all* private
) ) schools a state reimbursement equal to what the school saves the state
) ) by educating a child, provided that the private school meets state
) ) requirements as equitably determined.
)
)Sharon: But we all pay school taxes, even if our kids are grown or we don't
)have any kids, so I don't see how private schools are saving the state
)money.
I've seen quite a bit of what I consider really bad reporting in the local
newspaper where the persons being quoted would seem to agree with Sharon.
Massachusetts has "school choice," which, as I understand it, means that
you can send your children to any public school (regular or charter), and
your local school district must pay the district of attendance a per-pupil
fee. So, the newspaper reported, the town of Easthampton was "losing" over
one million dollars a year because of students attending schools
out-of-district. Now, nowhere in any of these articles -- there have been a
whole series of them, all quoting the figure for the amount of the loss --
was there any discussion of the actual impact of the fee on the economics
of Easthampton schools. In fact, the other school districts were relieving
Easthampton of the costs of education of a substantial number of pupils. So
school choice was "costing" Easthampton, not the total figure for payments
to other districts, but some lesser figure, adjusted for the savings from
not having to hire as many teachers, not having to operate as many
classrooms, etc. If Easthampton does not have sufficient facilities to
educate all those students -- quite likely -- then Easthampton may even be
*saving* money, since Easthampton would have to build more classrooms....
Private schools save the state money because the provide, at private
expense, for the education of their students, thus relieving the state of
that burden. Really, the question is pretty simple. If the private schools
closed down, there would be increased enrollment in public schools. This
would require increased expenditure. The savings of private schools is how
much more would have to be spent were it not for the private schools.
Because of overhead expenses, this savings is not the entire expense of
educating a child. If there were a voucher system or equivalent allowing a
certain reimbursement to private schools for each student, this
reimbursement being calculated to approximate the savings to the public
schools generated by the operation of the private school, and generally
speaking, this reimbursement would not cover capital expenditures for
facilities and the like. In other words, if someone wished to start a
private school, the cost of the physical buildings in which the private
school is to be housed would have to come from private funding. (However,
to the extent that maintenance costs are related to the number of pupils
served, there might be some funding available for maintenance.)
Note that sometimes public schools, when they have an excess of students
for the available physical structures, will rent temporary structures, so,
averaged over a state, there might be *some* funding available for capital
expense amortization.
However, the system I'm envisioning would really not get into the details
of *how* the state funds were spent. Rather, those funds would be
considered quite the same as any disbursement of state funds for a service
rendered. If John Smith contracts with the state to provide some service,
how John Smith spends the money is *generally* not the business of the
state, as long as John Smith, Inc., performs the service as defined by the
state. John Smith's religion is not only irrelevant, the state is legally
estopped from even considering it. If John Smith spends his profits to
promote religion, (or to promote, for example, a political agenda), the
state is rightly unconcerned, it may not legally consider this in
determining whether or not to award the contract.
) Keeping an eye on whether a school meets requirements would add a
)tremendous cost to tax payers.
This is already happening. Essentially, there is a long overdue movement to
make public schools accountable, through testing. A simple implementation
of my vision would make reimbursement of private schools dependent upon
test results. An actual implementation might be a bit more complex, but
testing private schools students as well as public school students is very
little additional expenditure (and for all I know, it might already be
required in some states).
The state is willingly obligated to provide free education to all defined
students in its jurisdiction; because, almost certainly, some parents will
not choose private schools, so the state *must* provide public schools, and
such schools are quite properly prohibited from teaching religion (or, for
that matter, from promoting some particular political view). Since the
state must provide schools, it must incur the facility and overhead
expenses regardless. (However, if it were true that, say, all parents but
one with one child were to choose private schools, the state would still
provide, essentially, individual tutoring and education for that child....
but this is quite unlikely. Schools generally reflect the composition and
concerns of the communities in which they are located, so they will cater,
for the most part, to the majority; when they seriously stray from that,
school board members tend to lose the next election.)
Since the state will already be providing education to, probably, the
majority of students, the incremental per-pupil cost to the state will not
be the full cost of education, but some lower figure. As I'd see it, the
figure would be periodically revised to reflect actual enrollments and
current costs. Bottom line, in an ideal system, the net cost to the state
of each student enrolled outside the public school system would be zero.
Therefore it could not be said that the state was promoting religion if one
of the schools taking advantage of this system happened to *also* teach
religion. In general, the costs of teaching religion, being additional to
the cost of providing the state-required education, would be coming from
private funding.
) It would also be unfair for the state to
)provide a Christian school in one neighborhood for some families but to deny
)a Hindu family in the same neighborhood access to a Hindu school, or not to
)offer an atheist parent an atheist alternative for their children in that
)area.
Let me repeat this, since it is obviously not clear to Sharon. The state
would not be "providing" any schools other than public schools. It would be
making no decisions about where to site private schools. It would not be in
the business of catering to this or that religion or philosophy. It would
simply be making a certain level of funding (not the full cost, almost
certainly) available to private schools which are independently and
privately organized and created, and which, holding vouchers from parents,
used these vouchers to contract with the state to provide specified
educational and related services.
Some of these private schools might be religious in nature. Many would not.
(There are many private schools in our area; most, it seems, are not
religious.)
) How would you deal with things like women's equality and Gay rights?
How would you deal with global pollution, the AIDS epidemic, and chronic
lack of voter participation?
)Should the state support schools that teach that God hates gays or that
)women are subservient to men?
The state is not in the business of promoting or of refuting or denying
religious views. However, there are state laws, for example, regarding
employment discrimination; some of these might apply to private schools.
The best remedy for the kind of social evils described is public exposure.
Would *you* send your children to such a private school? Now, consider
this: do you want *your* children enrolled in a public school with a
substantial number of students whose parents are teaching them these things?
(If there were enough parents in a district that they'd want and be able to
go to the substantial trouble and expense of organizing a private school in
order to teach these views, then, with no private school, there would be a
substantial number of students being so indoctrinated at home....)
Now, in some countries, it is an offense to teach ethnic hatred, for
example. The state, with a showing of public necessity, *could* prohibit
certain kinds of teachings even in private schools.
This idea that vouchers will inevitably lead to an explosion of schools
dominated by this or that wacko group is a chimera, a bugaboo; this ignores
the economic reality that private schools would still require substantial
private expenditure and would still involve, in many cases, tuition. The
tuition would merely be lower than at present, enough lower that there
would be many more scholarships available.
) After all that has been done to get this far
)in our society, I think segregated faith schools would be a step backwards.
Segregated faith schools already exist. However, a voucher system might
require that schools, to qualify, not discriminate on the basis of religion
for admission; so, such schools might well not be segregated, just as
Catholic schools presently have many non-Catholic students who attend
because their parents think the education better than that available in
public schools.
)I also think it would be unfair to give vouchers out because there just
)aren't enough private schools to go around.
This is circular. If there is a voucher system, there will be more private
schools. Generally, to use a voucher, the parents may have to spend
additional funds (scholarships excepted) in order for their children to
attend private schools. Vouchers, however, would have one clear effect.
They would make private schooling more accessible to people of lower
economic status. Because of scholarships, it is likely that many private
schools would have open enrollment with tuition on a sliding scale, so the
poorest parents would pay nothing.
)I think public schools need revamping, it would be great if they could even
)be reinvented. I think some problems could be addressed by distributing tax
)monies more equitably--give poor neighborhoods the same amount as rich
)neighborhoods.
Or more money. In fact, this is what a voucher system could do. As long as
the per-pupil reimbursement to the private schools is below the incremental
cost to public schools, every private school student would *increase* the
per-pupil funding available for public school students.
Charter schools, by the way, are a different animal. They are *public*
schools, and the PLANS lawsuit deals with what can be done in *public*
schools. Much of it boils down to two questions, one being whether or not
anthroposophy is a religion. I find the arguments in the amicus brief
presented by the Anthroposophical Society cogent and quite likely to
prevail, if the court rules on the issue, which it may wisely avoid (and
that is the core of the amicus argument). The second issue, more to the
point, legally, is whether or not the defendants systematically engaged in
practices proscribed by the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And, personally, I find that to be a more difficult question, one quite
likely to be undecidable by summary judgement. In other words, the
immediate petition of the plaintiffs will probably be denied.
And I'd suggest to PLANS that they get a better lawyer. The summary
judgement documents were such as to be quite likely to irritate the judge,
presenting a huge amount of irrelevant material apparently premised on the
idea that a hundred weak and probably inadmissible pieces of evidence are
better than one. I.e., Rudolph Steiner said this or that thing which seems
like a religious idea, therefore anthroposophy is a religion. The AS amicus
brief quite well skewers that piece of illogic, pointing out that the
religion of Maria Montessori, for example, is irrelevant in determining
whether or not Montessori education is religious.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:25:53 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
At 12:34 AM 7/29/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
)abd wrote:
))Just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of
))religious schools. Rather, I'm in favor of allowing *all* private
))schools a state reimbursement equal to what the school saves the state
))by educating a child, provided that the private school meets state
))requirements as equitably determined. As long as it meets the state
))requirements, the school could teach whatever else *additionally* it
))wished, provided that this additional teaching were not contrary to
))law. Religion could be taught in such a school. But, given the economic
))structure described, it would not be correct to say that the state was
))funding religious education, for the expense of that would be privately
))obtained.
)
)I don't accept this argument. This seems to me to have precisely the same
)effect as direct sponsorship of religious schools by the state. The only
)difference is the irrelevant (in my view) route that the money takes.
Direct sponsorship of schools by the state would generally imply that the
state establishes the schools or pays the full cost of such establishment,
or otherwise takes a hand in their creation and organization. Further,
effect is distinct from means. Some means to reach a certain effect may be
unlawful, other means may be lawful.
Mr.Farrell blurs the distinction between treating all private schools
equally, regardless of religious affiliation or lack of same, and the state
setting up religious schools. In the extreme, the state might, for example,
create a religious school according to the religion of the majority (or
even some minority that happens to enjoy a political advantage, by hook or
by crook, perhaps Republican schools .... :-). Or it could set formulae for
determining when a private school was created, perhaps according to the
numbers of persons in the community identifying with the religion or
philosophy; all this would probably violate the establishment clause. The
state should not be in the business of creating religious schools.
However, *any* private school that can meet the educational requirements of
the state could equitably receive a reimbursement equal to or less than the
cost saved by the state, without there being thereby any state sponsorship
of a particular religion. Yes, this might make it easier for some to found
and operate religious schools, but it would not, in itself, favor religious
schools over non-religious ones. I think it would meet the constitutional
tests.
And I think that the opposition to it will not come on constitutional
grounds; rather, the main opposition will come from those with vested
interests in the status quo. In addition, there will be opposition from
those who are actively hostile to religion, or to some forms of religion,
or, as we are seeing here, to an ideological or methodological movement
claimed to be a religion by its opponents.(I'll grant that Anthroposophy
resembles a religion in some ways or for some people; however, as the
amicus brief filed by the Anthroposophical Society well stated, it also
fails to meet certain critical aspects of the definition of religion, and
in particular, those aspects which are of greatest constitutional concern.
That some anthroposophists, i.e., persons self-identifying as such, take
the teachings of Rudolph Steiner in a dogmatic way does not thereby make
them dogma in the sense of dogma promoted by a coherent organized structure.
As I have elsewhere noted, there remain issues of fact in the PLANS
lawsuit. But my writing here is not in promotion of Waldorf education, and
certainly not of anthroposophy. Rather, it is of choice in education, for I
expect that increased choice, in this case, will bring with it an increase
in quality, in both public and private schools. As I have noted, a
well-designed voucher system should, in the long run, *increase* the
funding available to public schools.
The only exception to this has to do with *existing* private school
students. As these students are at present being educated at no cost to the
state, providing a voucher to them will involve an increase in state
expenditure in the amount of the vouchers.
However, consider this thought experiment. Arguments have been raised here
which, if applied consistently, would really require the outlawing of
private education, at least through the high school level. Private
education, it is argued, leads to harmful social consequences, due to, say,
religious segregation. Or perhaps sexual segregation. The only way to
remedy this, with regard to the existing situation, would be to require
that all students be educated in public schools. And, naturally, this would
be at public expense....
Suppose such laws were passed. (They would not be, in my opinion,
unconstitutional.) Now, suppose that there is a consideration of a return
to school diversity and multiplicity by once again allowing private schools
to be created and operated. In this case, we'd see the real financial
situation. Each pupil going to a private school would, on average, result
in a cost savings to the state. No increased state expenditure at all would
be required.
If the voucher system were as I proposed, the argument could not be raised
*at all* that issuing vouchers would in some way deprive public schools of
funding. It is only the context of the present inequitable situation that
can make it appear so.
One possible way to deal with the existing situation would be to phase in
such vouchers. My guess is that the numbers of private school students
would, in fact, increase slowly, but the accumulated increase would be
dramatic. Once again, if the voucher amount were sufficiently below the
incremental per-pupil cost, perhaps starting out at a pretty small level,
there might well be no funding loss at all to public schools. The program
could indeed be designed to make it so.
))Unless somehow the school manages to meet state requirements
))at the reduced rate that would be reimbursed, with something left over.
))But, as I wrote before, in this case it would have *earned* those extra
))funds, by educating more efficiently. I don't think it very likely.
))
))Note that this system would, by definition, not deprive public schools
))of needed funding, for any new private school's reimbursement.
)
)This is a statement with no supporting argument or evidence. I think you
)would have to justify the argument that removing money from the system
)does not deprive public schools of needed funds.
The phased-in system, by setting the reimbursement level appropriately,
could specifically insure that no funding loss in excess of the reduced
expense occurred as a result of vouchers. In other words, there would be no
"money removed from the system." The voucher level would be set at
precisely the level such that reimbursements to private schools would not
exceed the savings to the public school system produced by *increased*
private school enrollment. For practical reasons, this would mean that the
initial reimbursement level would probably be quite low.
))However,
))there is a transition problem, which I won't address. If such a system
))were implemented now, students at *existing* private schools would
))start to get what they have, all along, been saving the state. This is
))a hidden tax on private education. Anyway, the immediate effect would
))be a drain on the treasury; however, equity does call for something
))like this.
)
)I don't believe this is a hidden tax. It is an additional cost which you
)and others have chosen to bear for whatever reason.
No, I have not paid any such cost. I have never had a child enrolled in a
private school. I might, in the future, with my sixth child.
Perhaps it is not a "hidden tax" merely because Mr. Farrell says so. This
is the situation: all taxpayers pay into the general fund, and, in
addition, persons pay, directly or indirectly, property taxes which support
schools more directly. These tax funds are then used to pay all educational
expenses for persons who choose to put their children in public schools,
but, generally, nothing for those who choose to educate their children at
home or in private schools. In the latter two situations, the parents must
bear the full costs, which are considerable. Because each student enrolled
in a private school does reduce enrollment in public schools, by making
this choice, parents are relieving the state of a certain cost burden, at
substantial personal expense. (In the case of home schooling, the bulk of
the expense is in-kind, i.e., labor provided.) Yet these parents still pay
the full burden of taxes, as paid by everyone else. That portion of the
texes they pay that would come back them in educational benefit for their
children, does not come back to them, not in total (which may be proper)
but not even in part (which is inequitable, I'm arguing). This is why I
call it a hidden tax. Yes, it may be a tax that is voluntarily paid, by
choosing to education children outside the public school system. Mr Farrell
seems to think that if an expense is voluntary, it is not a tax. Yet many
taxes are based on voluntary decisions....
In the voucher system I envision, there would *still* be an increased cost,
quite likely, for educating one's children outside the public system. But
that cost would be reduced, eventually to a level such that private
education could be within the reach of many people regardless of income level.
) You could obtain the additional features that you desire through
) extracurricular activities such as Sunday Schools for Christians, and
) whatever the equivalents are called for other religions.
Mr. Farrell insists on imagining that I'm proposing some specific
accommodation to religion. I'm not. The voucher system I am proposing would
not *mention* religion, and it would neither encourage nor discourage
religious programs. It would be designed to facilitate educational choice,
and, yes, religious schools might be a part of that choice. But so would
non-religious schools. And the system as proposed (except possibly for the
transitional problem, and not even that if phased in properly) would not
harm public schools, except if the public schools were so bad that nearly
all students flee them. That may happen in some places.... but I would
expect that to be rare.
) One might also consider the position of taxpayers who are infertile.
) Should they be provided with vouchers they can use for some other purpose
) since they are being taxed to provide education for children they can
) never have.
No, they should not. Mr. Farrell, I'd assume, has heard the arguments about
this. The state provides free public education for public policy reasons,
it is considered to benefit all to have an educated next generation. The
benefit in the case of a childless couple could be rather obvious: that
couple may well be depending on the health of the economy for their
retirement, both privately and publicly. Subsidizing education does, in
fact, benefit them.
The question here is not whether or not education should be subsidized at
taxpayer expense, but *how* this education is provided. I'm proposing that
the present firewalled public and private school system be replaced by a
hybrid system, allowing private schools to provide education if they can
meet the same positive educational requirements as public schools; in
addition, they would have to meet certain negative requirements; for
example, not hiring pedophiles.... Not teaching religion, per se, would not
be one of those requirements. Note, however, that the public school
requirements might, for example, include teaching the theory of evolution
at an appropriate age, as well as the fact that this theory is accepted by
the vast majority of biologists. (That's a fact, not a religious belief.) A
private school would be free to teach, *in addition*, "creationism," or
whatever nonsense they believe, provided that the students can pass a test
regarding the theory of evolution. If the school doesn't want to do that,
they are still free, but, here I'd argue that the state should not allow
vouchers to be used by such a school....
(In a properly designed test, a question might be something like,
"According to the theory of evolution, what is the source of the diversity
of life?" The question would *not* be "What is the source of the diversity
of life?")
The system as I described it, being religiously neutral, does meet, I
believe, the constitutional requirements in a way that public sponsorship
of religious schools would not. Specifically, the system is not even
conceived to be in support of religious schools, per se; it just happens
that religious schools, being private schools, might benefit from it, but
the majority of schools benefited, I'd predict, would not be religious.
Rather, they would be founded on all sorts of educational principles and
systems, Montessori, Waldorf, Enke (sp?), secular humanist, Walden, etc.,
etc. Some might be quite similar to public schools as to curriculum, some
would not (but to receive voucher support, all would necessarily meet
certain educational goals.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:33:20 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in
Lawsuit
At 01:50 PM 7/29/2004, Gideon Mills (Deborah) wrote:
)"and that
)membership in
) ) the Anthroposophical Society is open to followers of all faiths."
)
)When I was young we were members of a Unitarian Church. It too prided
)itself on being open to people of all faiths and I vividly recall members
)of that church describing themselves as Jewish, Catholic, agnostic and
)atheist. It was there that I learned about Channukah, for example,
)because it was celebrated in that Church each year along with
)Christmas. Upon visiting other Unitarian churches I learned that each has
)its own "feel" and practicing doctrine and that some of their members
)refer to themselves as "Unitarian" only. Does this mean that Unitarianism
)is not a religion?
Not necessarily. There is a complex of tests. For one thing, I think there
is a doctrinal statement on which all Unitarians supposedly agree. There is
a coherent organization that explicitly describes itself as religious.
There are churches, regular and substantial organized ritual, etc.
To describe a blessing said at mealtime as equivalent to a religious
service is a bit of a stretch....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:37:12 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re:
At 02:22 PM 7/29/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Charlie Frey, you wrote,
)
))Did you all know that there are many people in Waldorf who are
))vehemently against Waldorf charter schools?
)
)Yes, the wiser people, in my opinion. Also the charters are unwelcome
)competition. When I visited the Novato Charter School (Waldorf), I learned
)that parents had bought a bus that brought kids every day from another
)town, passing two private Waldorf schools on the way!
)
)Several years ago Lamb editorialized in Threefold Review (now defunct)
)against public funding of Waldorf.
Steiner himself probably would have been against public funding of Waldorf
Schools, because he knew that with funding came a level of control.
However, note the implication: a school that seeks public funding is acting
contrary to the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.... and thus has left (if it
existed) the Anthroposophical Fold.
However, if Anthroposophy is *not* a religion, as claimed by
Anthroposophists -- at least by the most official A. organization in the
U.S. -- then individuals are free to follow whatever they think best
without thereby becoming "heretics."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
P.P.S.
Qualms with translation:
"...., ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen"
this is nitpicking I know but frequently the english
anthroposophical lingo "spiritually creative"
irritates me. I would translate schaffende in this
context as "productive" or "originating"....in English
"creative" implies artistic/arty in a way which I
don't sense the German schaffen(d) doing. Again, I
recognize that creative is valid I just tend to get
annoyed....furthermore, as you well know rGeist is a
subtle word, especially in any connection to German
philosophy. In English, I believe that using the terms
"spirit" and "spiritual" can lead to confusion when
they are synonimous with "spectre" or "ghost", or that
panoply. In my reading, the intent in the German leans
closer to rGeist as the Mind
"ist die am Geiste schaffende Rassen" thus could
equally be considered "is the most
mentally(spiritually) productive race"
this has a whole different ring than "is the most
spiritually creative race"
Just thought I'd give the readers here a taste of the
issues surrounding translations from German
Chris
--- waldorf-critics topica.com wrote:
) -- Topica Digest --
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By momof2gals mindspring.com
)
) RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's
) brief
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) RE: free choice of religion
) By diana.winters verizon.net
)
) Wandin Springs
) By jaquesdm msn.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Steiner on skin color and race
) By pstaud hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By awaldenpond shaw.ca
)
) Re: Steiner on skin color and race
) By feetapparel hotmail.com
)
) Re: Steiner on racial diversity
) By lioncell gmx.net
)
)
------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:39:25 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical
) Society's brief
)
)
)
)
) "Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their
) intention to
) introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to
) which they hope
) to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court.
) While the
) Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the
) kind of circus of
) hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that
) plaintiff is
) apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly
) interested that such
) "evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the
) entity best
) situated to put it in accurate perspective."
)
) The judge may be irritated by this haughty language,
) and the peculiar notion
) that introducing "documents" in a court case is
) somehow amiss. A "circus." A
) hundred documents, Dan? Of all the nerve :)
)
) The judge will probably not realize, though, how
) peculiarly anthroposophic
) this seeming allergy to documented evidence is.
) Diana
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:50:17 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Walden said:
)
) )I cringe when I hear my kids parroting my views
) while chatting with their
) )peers... until I realize we actually *share* some
) views and they actually
) )*do* believe in what they are saying. I was never
) even comfortable seeing
) )fellow enviro activists dragging their kids along
) to the protest, knowing
) )the cameras would use a cute kid with a sign for
) the 6 o'clock news. So...
)
)
) I hate seeing cute little kids with political signs
) too.
)
) Sometimes I'm just happy when I realize all the
) indoctrination my child
) *hasn't* received from me. The other afternoon, a
) storm was coming on, the
) sky grew very dark, and there were some interesting,
) dramatic cloud
) formations happening, and somebody said, "Wow, looks
) like Judgment Day out
) there." My 11-year-old asks, "What's Judgment Day?"
) I smile to myself, I've
) done a *few* things right in parenting :)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:55:20 -0400
) From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
)
)
) And I *don't* offer to drive him to church now and
) then. :)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) ------------------------------
)
) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:06:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
) From: momof2gals mindspring.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
)
)
) Just couldn't resist jumping in here with an
) anecdote that is relevant.
)
) Last spring (I hope my timing is correct on this
) .... I may be in error her! (g)) a friend of mine
) decided one weekend morning to take his five year
) old son on a day trip to Washington D.C.'s
) Smithsonian museum. (Like me, they live in a suburb
) of Baltimore.) As the father-son pair got off the
) Metro, they found themselves in the midst of a huge
) crowd of mostly women, who had come to the nation's
) capital that day to let the Bush administration know
) they supported abortion rights. My friend took his
) son's hand to lead him away from the crowd and
) toward the natural science museum (dinosaurs were
) the goal!) when a woman waving a big sign approached
) them.
) "Wow, it's great to see a father bringing his son to
) the protest to stand up for a woman's right to
) choose!" she said, smiling broadly.
) "Well, actually, ma'am, I brought my son here to
) stand up for his right to see a stegosaurus," he
) said.
) We laughed about this encounter later, but both of
) us agreed there was something disturbing not just
) about the woman's assumptions (you know what they
) say about assuming? (BWG)), but also about the many
) people who *do* bring and I would contend, use,
) their children in protests of any kind. I am equally
) ill at ease when I see kids wielding "Choose Life"
) signs from their strollers as I am kids in backpacks
) with "Pro Child, Pro Family, Pro Choice" bumper
) stickers adorning the child carriers.
) Though it is certainly our job as parents to guide
) our children and teach them what we think is
) important in the world, I think taking really young
) kids (kids too young to really form their own
) opinions) to these kinds of things is just not a
) great idea.
) Lisa
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
) Sent: Aug 2, 2004 10:50 AM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: free choice of religion
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
I was pleased to see a few responses to the article I posted from Richard
Dawkins. However nobody addressed the fundamental issue, and presumably
there are people posting here who do disagree with Dawkins on this issue of
assuming children will take up the religion of their families and culture.
Are there any comments?
See you, Peter
It's a Judeo-Christian issue. I don't know of any traditional First Nations people who think their children will not "take up" their Nation's beliefs/culture; it's not compartmentalized as it appears to be within mainstream religions. Traditional FN people do not proselytize and, in fact, generally do not want those outside of their Nation knowing that Nation's beliefs much less "practicing" them. That is why New Agers (and around here they are synonymous with the anthrops) are so roundly disliked by traditional FN people. There are hundreds of web sites set up strictly for the purpose of exposing New Agers because of the serious harm they do. This is a very different perspective as compared with the Christian sects.
Deborah
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society in America Intervenes in Lawsuit
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
. Does this mean that Unitarianism
)is not a religion?
Not necessarily. There is a complex of tests. For one thing, I think there
is a doctrinal statement on which all Unitarians supposedly agree.
I know that Unitarianism is a religion. I was simply attempting to compare it with how anthrops view their religion, even though some of them deny that anthroposophy is a religion. As I remember Unitarians have a basic set of tenets that all their churches ascribe to, but each church is controlled by its particular membership and not by a "mother" church. That actually seems to be far more liberal than what Waldorf schools are allowed to do if their administrators want to be classified as official Waldorf schools.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:07:41 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
At 01:10 AM 8/2/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Some rich language in the Anthroposophical Society's amicus curiae brief:
)
)"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to introduce
)more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope to define or
)reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the Society has no wish for
)the Court to engage in the kind of circus of hypotheses, interpretations
)and innuendoes that plaintiff is apparently eager to stage, it is
)profoundly interested that such "evidence" be seen in the light of the
)views of the entity best situated to put it in accurate perspective.
)
)Ah, yes, as it says in the disclaimers, no one who hasn't had
)Anthroposophical training is qualified to criticize Anthroposophy.
)
)"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical farrago that
)plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is not the kind of
)business that the Court should be about."
)
)Hmm, telling a federal court that they have no business deciding a
)church/state issue. The judge will love that.
I made a habit of reading Supreme Court decisions for a long time. They
used to be quite good. Of late, some have been a bit strained, apparently
to produce desired outcomes.... "This decision is not to be used as a
precedent." Hmm... wonder why?
The judge will be quite familiar with the arguments in the amicus brief,
and it is speaking his language. If Mr. Dugan is amused, perhaps he should
seek better legal counsel for PLANS, if he has any choice about it.
Note that the amicus did not at all state that the federal court had "no
business deciding a church/state issue." Rather, it noted the traditional
reserve of the courts about deciding matters which are, by the
establishment clause, outside the jurisdiction of the court. Deciding
whether or not
Anthroposophy, per se, is a religion is *quite properly* claimed in the
amicus brief to be an exercise for the court to avoid. Rather, the court
should decide the matter before it, which is whether or not the defendants
violated the consititution. "Anthroposophy is a religion" is not really an
issue before the court. A more relevant question would be whether or not
the schools substantially deviated from what is constitutionally required
of them, and it is not necessary to determine the general condition of
Anthroposophy in order to do that. The Society clearly had good counsel, I
was impressed.
In particular, since the schools, if I am correct, deny that they are
teaching Anthroposophy, and the immediate issue before the court is a
motion for summary judgement, the religious status of Anthroposophy would
seem to be irrelevant, and so would the majority of the assertions made in
the plaintiff's brief. Even if every teacher in the schoold were declared
Anthroposophistd, and they all thought of Anthroposophy as a religion --
and they aren't and don't -- this would not be enough, the plaintiff will
have to show that this *substantially* affected their behavior in ways
prohibited by the constitution. A person might, for example, choose one out
of many lawful ways of educating based on his personal religious beliefs;
showing that the choice was influenced by the religion would not, per se,
establish that the school is teaching religion.... Some leakage of
"anthroposophical beliefs" into the curriculum, as actually taught,
likewise would not be sufficient; rather it would have to be systematic and
constitutionally pernicious. These are matters of fact and they will
require a trial. Plaintiffs are wasting the time of the court with a motion
for summary judgement. Perhaps they know they are going to lose and wish to
draw it out for publicity reasons. Or perhaps they really believe that what
they have written is legally cogent. (The plaintiff's briefs that I read
seemed to be written for a popular audience, not for an audience of legally
sophisticated judges.... Not the way to write, I'd think, if you care about
prevailing in federal court, and especially on prevailing in a motion for
summary judgement, which requires the greatest strictness of satisfying
every possible objection.)
Of course, I also thought that a certain case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 2000 was open and shut, based on law and precedent. I was, indeed,
unprepared for how far the Court majority would deviate from not only the
Constitution itself but also well-established precedent and its own
principles. Essentially, the majority seems to have relied on its own
nearly absolute authority to determine what is and what is not
constitutional, well into the territory of the arbitrary, restrained only
by the very abstract threat of impeachment.... Sad. And very, very dangerous.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they hope
to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus of
hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
situated to put it in accurate perspective.
"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical farrago
that plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is not the
kind of business that the Court should be about."
In the first paragraph it sounds as if they are implying that the Court is incapable of reading the documents. I don't know any attorney who would not take that as in insult and judges are even more prone to such slights. The word "define" in the first paragraph and the word "farrago" are not only incongruous, but can be characterized as antonyms.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on the races of mankind
Mike Helsher (mhelsher ne.rr.com) wrote:
Articulate personal definitions, and answers to these questions should be
essential, and included in any properly documented review of alleged racism
in Anthroposophy.
"Racism" is a conclusory word, which is why I rarely use it anymore, i.e. using it does not explain anything. My desk dictionary's straightforward definition of "racism" is "a belief that one's own race is superior." Steiner believed in the concept of "race" and he believed that his "race" is superior. Moral judgments and the historical record aside, does that not make him a racist?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Disillusioned ex-Waldorf parent
Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
Child sexual abuse is, in my view, quite harmful, but is it as harmful
as,
for example, murder of a child?
That depends upon who you ask. For those survivors of child sexual use - I don't use "abuse" because there is nothing okay about the sexual "use" of children and therefore the "ab" prefix is inappropriate - who wind up repeatedly trying to die, being directly murdered may appear preferable. I have known many survivors of child sexual use, including my sister and my closest friend.
There is now considerable evidence that the sexual use of a child causes permanent changes in the brain. (In addition, the general consensus within the mental health community is that those who sexually children cannot be rehabilitated. That is one reason that chemical intervention is sometimes used.) My most serious confrontations with the local Waldorf community has been over this very issue. We come from child-centered cultures and so it is particularly horrifying to us when adults appear to have no sense of boundaries when it comes to children. My understanding of the history of the local formation of this Waldorf community is that many if not all of the initial members came from the Rainbow Family, which is a group with a well-known problem of sexual use of children. I suspect it is that which has been carried over into this particular Waldorf community, but I could be wrong. I do know that there have been attempts at the Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School to cover up at least
one such incident.
I have wondered if their karmic and/or reincarnation beliefs coupled with their belief that they are better than everyone else (and thus can ignore taboos, etc.)that partially explains their attitudes.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:33:02 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)However, *any* private school that can meet the educational requirements of
)the state could equitably receive a reimbursement equal to or less than the
)cost saved by the state, without there being thereby any state sponsorship
)of a particular religion. Yes, this might make it easier for some to found
)and operate religious schools, but it would not, in itself, favor religious
)schools over non-religious ones. I think it would meet the constitutional
)tests.
This is the pretty close to the situation in Australia, although there is no
voucher system. Instead we have an imperfect system which varies fgrom state
to state but which is supposedly based on some socio-economic measures
associated with the enrolment at the school.
I have no opinion about US constitutional issues. I admit your constitution
and its interpretation is a source of unceasing wonder to me.
)However, consider this thought experiment. Arguments have been raised here
)which, if applied consistently, would really require the outlawing of
)private education, at least through the high school level. Private
)education, it is argued, leads to harmful social consequences, due to, say,
)religious segregation. Or perhaps sexual segregation. The only way to
)remedy this, with regard to the existing situation, would be to require
)that all students be educated in public schools. And, naturally, this would
)be at public expense....
This does not follow. One could regulate private schools so that these
alleged sources of harm were removed.
)If the voucher system were as I proposed, the argument could not be raised
)*at all* that issuing vouchers would in some way deprive public schools of
)funding. It is only the context of the present inequitable situation that
)can make it appear so.
Of course I can raise the argument. The details here matter. You have raise
elsewhere the time scales associated with this process as one issue. Another
issue is the geographical boundaries which are used for funding puproses.
For example if relatively localised geographical regions were used for the
allocations of funds, time variations in the numbers of people using
vouchers for private schools could lead to local public schools becoming
unviable.
)
)One possible way to deal with the existing situation would be to phase in
)such vouchers. My guess is that the numbers of private school students
)would, in fact, increase slowly, but the accumulated increase would be
)dramatic. Once again, if the voucher amount were sufficiently below the
)incremental per-pupil cost, perhaps starting out at a pretty small level,
)there might well be no funding loss at all to public schools. The program
)could indeed be designed to make it so.
)
)))Unless somehow the school manages to meet state requirements
)))at the reduced rate that would be reimbursed, with something left over.
)))But, as I wrote before, in this case it would have *earned* those extra
)))funds, by educating more efficiently. I don't think it very likely.
)))
)))Note that this system would, by definition, not deprive public schools
)))of needed funding, for any new private school's reimbursement.
))
))This is a statement with no supporting argument or evidence. I think you
))would have to justify the argument that removing money from the system
))does not deprive public schools of needed funds.
)
)The phased-in system, by setting the reimbursement level appropriately,
)could specifically insure that no funding loss in excess of the reduced
)expense occurred as a result of vouchers. In other words, there would be no
)"money removed from the system." The voucher level would be set at
)precisely the level such that reimbursements to private schools would not
)exceed the savings to the public school system produced by *increased*
)private school enrollment. For practical reasons, this would mean that the
)initial reimbursement level would probably be quite low.
)
)
)Mr. Farrell insists on imagining that I'm proposing some specific
)accommodation to religion.
I cannot reconcile this with the vast bulk of your postings to this site. It
is absolutely clear that your desire is some additional spirituality in the
schooling.
I'm not. The voucher system I am
)proposing would not *mention* religion,
It doesn't need to. You've mentioned it enough already.
and it would neither
)encourage nor discourage religious programs.
Of course it would encourage religious programs. I don't believe you can be
serious putting this argument forward. It is plainly nonsense.
It would be designed to
)facilitate educational choice, and, yes, religious schools might be a part
)of that choice. But so would non-religious schools. And the system as
)proposed (except possibly for the transitional problem, and not even that
)if phased in properly) would not harm public schools, except if the public
)schools were so bad that nearly all students flee them. That may happen in
)some places.... but I would expect that to be rare.
)
)) One might also consider the position of taxpayers who are infertile.
))Should they be provided with vouchers they can use for some other purpose
))since they are being taxed to provide education for children they can
))never have.
)
)No, they should not. Mr. Farrell, I'd assume, has heard the arguments about
)this. The state provides free public education for public policy reasons,
)it is considered to benefit all to have an educated next generation. The
)benefit in the case of a childless couple could be rather obvious: that
)couple may well be depending on the health of the economy for their
)retirement, both privately and publicly. Subsidizing education does, in
)fact, benefit them.
Exactly. And this is exactly the reason that you should pay additional costs
for the benefits that you think will accrue from a private education.
)
)The question here is not whether or not education should be subsidized at
)taxpayer expense, but *how* this education is provided. I'm proposing that
)the present firewalled public and private school system be replaced by a
)hybrid system, allowing private schools to provide education if they can
)meet the same positive educational requirements as public schools; in
)addition, they would have to meet certain negative requirements; for
)example, not hiring pedophiles.... Not teaching religion, per se, would not
)be one of those requirements. Note, however, that the public school
)requirements might, for example, include teaching the theory of evolution
)at an appropriate age, as well as the fact that this theory is accepted by
)the vast majority of biologists. (That's a fact, not a religious belief.) A
)private school would be free to teach, *in addition*, "creationism," or
)whatever nonsense they believe, provided that the students can pass a test
)regarding the theory of evolution. If the school doesn't want to do that,
)they are still free, but, here I'd argue that the state should not allow
)vouchers to be used by such a school....
I have serious reservations about this. These researvations are similar to
the ones I have with respect to state intervention in cases where the
religious belief of parents interferes with medical treatment for children.
)
)(In a properly designed test, a question might be something like,
)"According to the theory of evolution, what is the source of the diversity
)of life?" The question would *not* be "What is the source of the diversity
)of life?")
)
)The system as I described it, being religiously neutral, does meet, I
)believe, the constitutional requirements in a way that public sponsorship
)of religious schools would not. Specifically, the system is not even
)conceived to be in support of religious schools, per se; it just happens
)that religious schools, being private schools, might benefit from it, but
)the majority of schools benefited, I'd predict, would not be religious.
)Rather, they would be founded on all sorts of educational principles and
)systems, Montessori, Waldorf, Enke (sp?), secular humanist, Walden, etc.,
)etc. Some might be quite similar to public schools as to curriculum, some
)would not (but to receive voucher support, all would necessarily meet
)certain educational goals.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this belief and the evidence from
other countries indicates otherwise.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
10,000 children need sponsors – change a life:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9294008;9739733;y?http://www.worldvision.com.au/childsponsorship/search/child_search.asp?om=1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:40:31 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Gideon Mills wrote:
)It's a Judeo-Christian issue. I don't know of any traditional First
Nations people who think their children will not "take up" their Nation's
beliefs/culture; it's not compartmentalized as it appears to be within
mainstream religions.
Do First Nation children take up their tradional religions and beliefs? Do
statistics exist?
I don't think that it is a Judeo-Christian issue although it may well have
started there. The notion of freedom of religion is wide spread but not
universally accepted. Note the legal sanctions against apostates in some
muslim countries and the suppression of religious beliefs in communist
countries.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Love Movies? You'll love HomeScreen. Rental DVDs - no late fees! Go to:
http://www.ninemsn.homescreen.com.au/account/freetrial/?.promo=9msn_hotmail_
tagline
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:52:41 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
I responded earlier to Abd's comment
Abd: "No, they should not. Mr. Farrell, I'd assume, has heard the arguments
about
this. The state provides free public education for public policy reasons,
it is considered to benefit all to have an educated next generation. The
benefit in the case of a childless couple could be rather obvious: that
couple may well be depending on the health of the economy for their
retirement, both privately and publicly. Subsidizing education does, in
fact, benefit them. "
Me: Exactly. And this is exactly the reason that you should pay additional
costs
for the benefits that you think will accrue from a private education.
I meant to add that this additional expense that you wish to incur should
not relieve you from the responsibility to support public education through
taxation, since you benefit from this in the same way a childless person
does, regardless of how you choose to educate your own children.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Love Movies? You'll love HomeScreen. Rental DVDs - no late fees! Go to:
http://www.ninemsn.homescreen.com.au/account/freetrial/?.promo=9msn_hotmail_
tagline
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:14:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
abd wrote (last week; still catching up):
)I'm not in favor of state *sponsorship* of religious schools. Rather, I'm
)in favor of allowing *all* private schools a state reimbursement equal to
)what the school saves the state by educating a child, (snip explanation of
why it's supposedly ok if religion is part of this school)
)But, given the economic structure described, it would not be correct to
)say that the state was funding religious education, for the expense of
)that would be privately obtained.
This is word games. "Sponsoring" = "reimbursing" = "funding." I see this
same argument continues and is embellished in later posts. These are
synonyms for "paying for it." It doesn't matter who "organized" or
"established" the religious school, as you later propose; the person
*paying* obviously has the right to organize or establish whatever they want
and will use it. Once you've established that the state has that right, the
state will certainly use it to set up religious schools. This is not
far-fetched as Abd would have us believe; this would happen tomorrow, in
some locales (Utah comes to mind), if the church/state principle
disappeared. You want us to look distractedly in another direction for a
moment or two while the money flies around, and maybe we won't notice where
it started out and where it ended up. Actually, I've now at least skimmed
your later posts and this seems to about sum it up.
)provided that the private school meets state requirements as equitably
)determined.
It was equitably determined a long time ago that religious schools *don't*
meet state requirements.
)As long as it meets the state requirements, the school could teach whatever
)else *additionally* it wished, provided that this additional teaching were
)not contrary to law. Religion could be taught in such a school.
Teaching religion in the public setting *is* contrary to law here, so your
above sentence is nonsensical.
)However, there is a transition problem, which I won't address. If such a
)system were implemented now, students at *existing* private schools would
)start to get what they have, all along, been saving the state. This is
)a hidden tax on private education.
It's a "hidden tax" only if the state is failing to provide you with
something they owe you for your tax money and are thus, unfairly, forcing
you to pay for it yourself. We've established that this is not the case with
religious education.
I haven't seen those arguments rebutted or even acknowledged - you are
silent on all arguments regarding the positive reasons tax money in the US
does not fund religious activities, the protections afforded even, in fact
particularly, to religious minorities, by the positive establishment of
neutrality. It is actually rather disappointing that these arguments are
never taken on. There *are* substantive arguments against separation of
church and state. I'd like to rebut them too :) Thinking of the Philip
Jenkins quotes Sharon posted, and his perspective of keeping religious life
healthy, it might even be a bad sign for a society's religious life if few
dare or care to make serious, substantive arguments for why religion should
have an unrestrained role in public life. All this stealth can't be healthy.
Unfortunately, the pro-religious funding arguments are generally not
serious; though they may be complex, like Abd's, they seem generally merely
opportunistic. First they just try to sneak around the law and hope no one
will notice a few religious activities here and there in public schools
(stealth); then when challenged they whine that they want the money and
don't see why they shouldn't get it. Abd is one in a long line just on this
list to whine that it is a bummer that religious schools can't have tax
money. I admit his schemes for routing the money through various complicated
channels, so that presumably few notice where it started and where it ended
up, and will then hopefully not notice the state is now funding religion,
are very clever.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:15:11 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: free choice of religion
Abd wrote:
)However, consider this thought experiment. Arguments have been raised here
)which, if applied consistently, would really require the outlawing of
)private education, at least through the high school level. Private
)education, it is argued, leads to harmful social consequences, due to, say,
)religious segregation. Or perhaps sexual segregation.
I presume this relates to Sharon's dislike of religion-segregated schools,
but Sharon, actually, is an outspoken advocate of religious freedom and has
never argued for religious schools to be outlawed. How do you miss the point
so persistently? We argue for them to be NOT TAX-SUPPORTED.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:48:36 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
)Note that the amicus did not at all state that the federal court had "no
)business deciding a church/state issue." Rather, it noted the traditional
)reserve of the courts about deciding matters which are, by the
)establishment clause, outside the jurisdiction of the court. Deciding
)whether or not Anthroposophy, per se, is a religion is *quite properly*
)claimed in the amicus brief to be an exercise for the court to avoid.
Are you a lawyer, Abd? You sure have a lot to say, and quite confidently,
about what it will be proper for the court to do or not do, and I would
remind you that you know little or nothing about what evidence of any of
this that PLANS may plan to present.
I'm not a lawyer either but I don't think, actually, that the court takes it
up on itself to decide "whether anthroposophy is a religion." It may on the
other hand decide whether there is a general consensus among scholars of
religion, for instance, about whether anthroposophy is a religion. The judge
is not likely a scholar of religion himself and naturally relies on expert
testimony. Given your argumentation, courts could rarely decide anything.
You pontificate:
)In particular, since the schools, if I am correct, deny that they are
)teaching Anthroposophy, and the immediate issue before the court is a
)motion for summary judgement, the religious status of Anthroposophy would
)seem to be irrelevant, and so would the majority of the assertions made in
)the plaintiff's brief. Even if every teacher in the schoold were declared
)Anthroposophistd, and they all thought of Anthroposophy as a religion --
)and they aren't and don't -- this would not be enough, the plaintiff will
)have to show that this *substantially* affected their behavior in ways
)prohibited by the constitution. A person might, for example, choose one out
)of many lawful ways of educating based on his personal religious beliefs;
)showing that the choice was influenced by the religion would not, per se,
)establish that the school is teaching religion.... Some leakage of
)"anthroposophical beliefs" into the curriculum, as actually taught,
)likewise would not be sufficient; rather it would have to be systematic and
)constitutionally pernicious.
Frankly, you haven't a clue, as far as we know here, considering that you
remain silent on the question of whether you have yet managed to observe
even one classroom, about what goes on in those classrooms, and you
certainly have no idea what evidence PLANS may present regarding whether
anthroposophical beliefs are "systematically" present in the schools in
question.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:42:42 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1424
Chris, when quoting a digest, please:
1) change the subject field to the subject of the thread, and
2) delete all text not relevant to your comments.
Posting copies of digests clogs our archives with repetitions.
If you're going to participate in the dialogue, you will find it much
more convenient to change your subscription to individual messages.
Thanks, Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:13:14 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: free choice of religion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, you wrote:
)That some anthroposophists, i.e., persons self-identifying as such,
)take the teachings of Rudolph Steiner in a dogmatic way does not
)thereby make them dogma in the sense of dogma promoted by a coherent
)organized structure.
But that is exactly what Anthroposophy is and does. It's an organized
structure based on the belief that Steiner was able to receive
information from supernatural sources. It's stated that this
information can't be criticized unless you are a believer.
Supernatural sources are religious, and unquestionable tenets are
dogmas.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:50:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: rich language in Anthroposophical Society's brief
DAN DUGAN
))Some rich language in the Anthroposophical Society's amicus curiae brief:
))
))"Plaintiff's representatives, have stated their intention to
))introduce more than 100 "documents" into evidence to which they
))hope to define or reinvent "anthroposophy" for the Court. While the
))Society has no wish for the Court to engage in the kind of circus
))of hypotheses, interpretations and innuendoes that plaintiff is
))apparently eager to stage, it is profoundly interested that such
))"evidence" be seen in the light of the views of the entity best
))situated to put it in accurate perspective."
))
))Ah, yes, as it says in the disclaimers, no one who hasn't had
))Anthroposophical training is qualified to criticize Anthroposophy.
))
))"It is respectfully submitted that the kind of philosophical
))farrago that plaintiff seeks to perpetrate on the participants is
))not the kind of business that the Court should be about."
))
))Hmm, telling a federal court that they have no business deciding a
))church/state issue. The judge will love that.
ABD:
)The judge will be quite familiar with the arguments in the amicus
)brief, and it is speaking his language. If Mr. Dugan is amused,
)perhaps he should seek better legal counsel for PLANS, if he has any
)choice about it.
We're quite happy with our representation. Scott Kendall has won
everything he's argued so far, including at the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
)Note that the amicus did not at all state that the federal court had
)"no business deciding a church/state issue." Rather, it noted the
)traditional reserve of the courts about deciding matters which are,
)by the establishment clause, outside the jurisdiction of the court.
)Deciding whether or not
)Anthroposophy, per se, is a relig