Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Masons-Steiner
- Hello Starman and all,
Thanks, Starman, for all you share on Thomas Jefferson (TJ), Masons and
Founding Fathers, Steiner and Masons, etc. I would suggest that your sharing
(your "reflected light") would be more effective, at least with me, if you
engaged in discussion instead of lecture with what to me sounds like a
haughty tone. This is a matter of tone/attitude, at least in my hearing
(which, admittedly, may be flawed, but its the best i have for now).
--There are, of course, important things to ponder or look at in your post.
Yet, after all you write/lecture about, I still don't know whether the
Masons here in America "fought for and won freedom against the forces of
repression. . .", as you say. Sure, as you say, the Catholic Church was
repressive. However, what happened with the native peoples and slaves, at
the hands of the Founding Fathers and others is, as far as i am able to see,
an example of replacing one oppression with another. Thus,it seems to me
that the "freedom" won had limits.--Now, this (the behavior of TJ and
Founding Fathers) may be understandably human, and whatever freedom was won
may have been two steps, so to say, in the right direction (steps from which
we benefit today), but there was also at the same time, in my experience, a
repressive step, a step backwards, into repression of natives, women,
African slaves. I do not choose to gloss over this or forget it.
I choose to remember it, because all around i see people today suffering,
and the legacy of racism and sexism and the like is alive and well.
Further, I do know something of the argument about male property rights;
however, this does not justify the treatment of women as second class
citizens...Thomas Jefferson wrote a piece (i can't find it now) about how
women/girls should be educated. It was ok for them to learn French and
things to be pleasing to their husbands and company, but he didn't think
much of women's education being on a par with that of men, at least not at
the time he wrote that piece (sorry, i can't find it now). In any case, i am
sure there is plenty, plenty, plenty of evidence that women were second
class citizens (we have not yet fully overcome that one).In that day (and to
a degree even today) women are not/were not considered capable of the
"freedom" to which men were to be afforded.--I think that is pretty obvious.
Or do you see it as not so obvious?
As for my saying that ben franklin and others were influenced by the
Iroquois (Hodenosaunee/aka Hodenoshonee) Confederacy as a brilliant model of
democracy, you write that there is "little evidence" for such and go on to
cite TJ's relationship to Locke, Voltaire, et al, among Europeans. I am
sorry, Starman, but your sweeping declarations do not work well with me.
Obviously, Locke, et al had a great influence, but so did the natives, at
least on Ben Franklin and thus, in turn, upon others among the FF. I suggest
that you consider the haughtiness of your tone and your expression of what
you say as dismissive of other views for which there is evidence. I am sure
i could go find evidence of Iroquois influence. I didn't pull this out of my
hat. But I don't need to go looking up sources here just to prove a point to
you. You can find the sources yourself, if you choose.
And let me respond to one more thing in your post, something which to me is
most important of all, and i thank you for bringing it up--that is, the
matter of defending TJ, and of one today not pointing fingers of criticism
at, or "judging too harshly", what happened in the 18th century here. You
>In other words, I don't think any of us should easily say that
> As for the man Jefferson himself, let's try to remember that a
>two centuries from now may call US all barbarians for not all being
>People should not be judged too harshly by the standards of a later era,
>they seldom can rise above their time, first of all, and second, using
>standards, there's always something to criticize, and it's the first step
>the KHW path to stop doing so automatically. ((...snip on Sally Hemings,
>someone "failed to live up to his lofty ideals". When one points a fingerYour tone makes me wonder whether i should try to respond. You appear to
>someone else, three point back at you. At least he set them and tried to
>up to them. He freed his slaves at his death, warned his countrymen that
>slavery was an evil, wrote it into the first draft of the Declaration, etc.
write (in my reading, which may be flawed) as though you have it all figured
out, and in a way that is lecturing and preaching. I don't really see a
clear opening in trying to communicate with you, but I will try.I won't go
into the Sally Hemings/DNA argument, because to me that has little to do
with the heart of the issue i raised. DNA or not, **Jefferson, the
Declaration writer, owned slaves**, and it is possible, so say Jefferson
descendants, that he fathered children by a slave.--And that, the ownership
of slaves, shows a deep contradiction within the man of the Declaration.
That seems obvious and not even worth debating, so i am not sure why you are
lecturing me on that one.
---In any case--to the point you make on judging others: you talk about not
"automatically" pointing fingers at another, and about how that is what is
learned on the path to Higher Knowledge So, lets' look at that. I said that
TJ did not fully live up to his lofty ideals. If that is pointing fingers,
as you call it, then so be it.
I state what to me and a zillion others seems quite factual: TJ, who owned
hundred or more slaves (under whatever conditions of doubt or duress),
contradicted the ideals of the Declaration wherein it is stated that "all
men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with...." I
think that is about as close as we get to fact here, and I added that this
contradicted his lofty ideals. So, if you want to call that "pointing
fingers", then so be it.
We are all--including starman, TJ, elaine, all--responsible for our actions,
we all who have achieved a certain consciousness and a karmic path. When i
state what TJ did, this is not judgement of him as evil or bad. But what he
*did* was evil. Slavery was evil. Owning slaves was evil. Well, Good that he
freed them before he died. That's another matter, and we could go into what
that was all about and what kind of "freeing" that was.
Many Jews say "Never again" and "Never forget." I heard one rabbi from
Czechoslovakia (there was still then such a country) say that he could
"forgive but not forget."
Until the evils of racism, sexism and the like (yes, also cruelty to animals
is included here)--until this is transcended, there is for me a need to
remember, review what happened, how we came to be where we are and thus see
where we can go in the overcoming of these ills. This is not condemning TJ
or the Founding Fathers, but it is a way of saying we still have a ways to
go and their gifts are not without contradictions, and because of this, this
country (the U.S.) has inherited a group of people with both a bright and
troubled karma. It is the brightness that i would praise, and the trouble
that i would seek, humbly, to participate in healing.
There is more in your post on the Illuminati, etc., which I also find I do
not agree with, or find that you slant evidence (even, no doubt, as i
do--smile, but I am learning, i hope, and maybe you are learning, also).
AS for Steiner and the Masons (where this all began), this is still all
dubious matter to me, on many levels.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
- Dear Elaine,
Go to Terry Boardman's webpages for "real" information on anthroposophy,
modern politics and "conspiracies". Here is the URL for his essays on the New
World Order, just remember that his site has more than just these essays.
Enjoy your new reading!