Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

WC and Christian fundies (was: A guess/A view)

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    ... I don t know if Theodor has been reading much at the WC, also commonly known as the Unthinkable Facility. But he is right about the Christian
    Message 1 of 29 , May 6, 2006
      Judy wrote:

      > J: Could someone please explain what the Waldorf Critics have to
      > do with Christian Fundamentalists? Thanks.

      I don't know if Theodor has been reading much at the WC, also
      commonly known as the Unthinkable Facility. But he is right about the
      Christian fundamentalist connection. The PLANS-WC establishment is a
      cult consisting of fanatics just like Christian fundy churches like
      Pat Robertson and the like. They are also affiliated with staunch
      Christian fundamentalists, and now they are making adjustments in
      their philosophical outlook - atheists for Jesus? - to make the
      fundies feel more at home. So the Christian fundamentalist element
      within PLANS-WC is likely to increase in strength and become dominant
      in the future. It's a classic case of spiritual decadence with a
      development that is not only retarded, but reversed.

      Tarjei
    • dottie zold
      And if I might piggyback my brother Taz I would have to say that what they both have in common, and why they mutually support one another in the case against
      Message 2 of 29 , May 6, 2006
        And if I might piggyback my brother Taz I would have to say that what
        they both have in common, and why they mutually support one another
        in the case against Waldorf is that they both want Rudolf Steiner out
        of education: Critics mostly as atheists and Christian
        fundamentalists against anyone being able to think for themselves.
        They make very strange bedfellows but found a way to meet their most
        pressing needs: no waldorf. This clears the groundway for the
        fundamentalists when waldorf is out of the way to bring their own
        fundy view of spirit meaning. So in a way they both are dancing with
        their devils in the opposite arena. Interesting ey Judy?

        Best,
        Dottie

        p.s. can you supply what you called a 'serious' biographer pertaining
        to Gandhi. And it would be true that most if not all of the higher
        enlightened folks who have taught mankind were celibate or so I have
        read in most books I perused over the years.

        In tantra it would seem to me that the highest form of that would not
        be physical contact but spiritual. But here on earth it is physical
        that seems to lead to the higher. But my thoughts differ on what
        happens thereafter compared to what others think about it. To each
        his own.


        > Judy wrote:
        >
        > > J: Could someone please explain what the Waldorf Critics have
        to
        > > do with Christian Fundamentalists? Thanks.
        >
        > I don't know if Theodor has been reading much at the WC, also
        > commonly known as the Unthinkable Facility. But he is right about
        the
        > Christian fundamentalist connection. The PLANS-WC establishment is
        a
        > cult consisting of fanatics just like Christian fundy churches like
        > Pat Robertson and the like. They are also affiliated with staunch
        > Christian fundamentalists, and now they are making adjustments in
        > their philosophical outlook - atheists for Jesus? - to make the
        > fundies feel more at home. So the Christian fundamentalist element
        > within PLANS-WC is likely to increase in strength and become
        dominant
        > in the future. It's a classic case of spiritual decadence with a
        > development that is not only retarded, but reversed.
        >
        > Tarjei
        >
      • winters_diana
        ... No - Rudolf Steiner out of *public* taxpayer-funded education, as anthroposophy is a religious movement and religious movements aren t permitted
        Message 3 of 29 , May 6, 2006
          Dottie wrote to Judy:

          >what they both have in common, and why they mutually support one
          >another in the case against Waldorf is that they both want Rudolf
          >Steiner out of education:

          No - Rudolf Steiner out of *public* taxpayer-funded education, as
          anthroposophy is a religious movement and religious movements aren't
          permitted entanglement with public education in the US, per the
          Constitution. Private Waldorf schools we have no wish to see Rudolf
          Steiner's influence removed from (were such a thing even remotely
          possible). (We might indeed argue that bringing in other influences
          in Waldorf schools could be quite healthy, and that Steiner's
          educational views can and should be critiqued. He was quite wrong on
          a number of points, such as children under 7 being damaged by
          reading.) Critics wish mainly to see the Steiner/Waldorf schools
          explain the influence of Steiner in the curriculum and the life of
          the school more fully to prospective customers, so that only
          anthroposophists and various other people who fully comprehend what
          anthroposophy is, and feel their family is compatible, will enroll
          their children making this fully informed decision.

          >Critics mostly as atheists

          Critics are most definitely not mostly atheists, but Dottie repeats
          this because it is a simple argument to remember, and she uses it as
          a slur. It is always easier to lump people together into clearcut
          categories, even though in real life critics are from a wide variety
          of spiritual backgrounds, and there is no single point we have in
          common in terms of religion or spiritual beliefs. It's sad to think
          that Dottie imagines there are still people who will shudder at the
          idea of a dirty, scary atheist. She uses the word the way "Communist"
          used to be used, in fact she throws all these words around together
          sometimes, simply hoping they still frighten some people. I get the
          impression it works on people like Gaelman, who then reply with their
          own prejudices showing, writing mildly that they've known some
          atheists, and they were 'characters'. Like atheists aren't just
          people on the bus or at the office, or living next door to you, whom
          you might see putting our their trash or walking their dog (shudder).
          It is sad to hear such ignorant conversations going on today, and
          such fear.


          >and Christian fundamentalists against anyone being able to think for
          >themselves.
          >They make very strange bedfellows but found a way to meet their most
          >pressing needs: no waldorf. This clears the groundway for the
          >fundamentalists when waldorf is out of the way to bring their own
          >fundy view of spirit meaning.

          Fundamentalists as we probably all know are pretty savvy politically.
          I think that the fundamentalists who supported PLANS viewed the cause
          as win-win for them. If PLANS were to lose in court, and Waldorf were
          declared permissible in public schools, then the door would be open
          for other religious movements to run public schools, including of
          course Christian fundamentalists. If PLANS wins, then of course they
          are happy to see a competing religious movement, one that they
          consider severely misguided if not downright Satanic, lose the right
          to proselytize public school children. They feel that if
          anthroposophists can proselytize public school children, they
          (anthroposophists) should not be denied the same right. (They're
          right.)


          Diana
        • winters_diana
          ... The first they meant fundamentalist Christians, and the word in parentheses should have been fundamentalists, too. Diana
          Message 4 of 29 , May 6, 2006
            I wrote:

            >They feel that if anthroposophists can proselytize public school
            >children, they (anthroposophists) should not be denied the same right.

            The first "they" meant fundamentalist Christians, and the word in
            parentheses should have been "fundamentalists," too.
            Diana
          • Judy Baumbauer
            dottie zold schrieb: p.s. can you supply what you called a serious biographer pertaining to Gandhi. And it would be true that most if
            Message 5 of 29 , May 6, 2006
              dottie zold <dottie_z@...> schrieb:
              p.s. can you supply what you called a 'serious' biographer pertaining
              to Gandhi. And it would be true that most if not all of the higher
              enlightened folks who have taught mankind were celibate or so I have
              read in most books I perused over the years.
              J: Gandhi's Truth, by Erik H. Erikson and Gandhi's Passion, by Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi may have become celibate, but he had children. Personally I am wary of celibacy because it implies that sex is sinful - and how can something natural that produces children be sinful? As far as Rudolf is concerned, I've asked around a lot about this, and the conclusion is the same as that indicated on this list: no one knows. I think this is the case with most other "higher enlightened folks" as well. 

              Judy


              Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
              Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!

            • Steve Hale
              ... you called a serious biographer pertaining ... have ... Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi may have become celibate, but he had children. Personally I am wary of
              Message 6 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Judy Baumbauer
                <judy.baumbauer@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > dottie zold <dottie_z@...> schrieb: p.s. can you supply what
                you called a 'serious' biographer pertaining
                > to Gandhi. And it would be true that most if not all of the higher
                > enlightened folks who have taught mankind were celibate or so I
                have
                > read in most books I perused over the years.
                >
                > J: Gandhi's Truth, by Erik H. Erikson and Gandhi's Passion, by
                Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi may have become celibate, but he had
                children. Personally I am wary of celibacy because it implies that
                sex is sinful - and how can something natural that produces children
                be sinful? As far as Rudolf is concerned, I've asked around a lot
                about this, and the conclusion is the same as that indicated on this
                list: no one knows. I think this is the case with most other "higher
                enlightened folks" as well.
                >
                > Judy

                Gandhi not only had children, but he was rather highly sex-charged,
                demanding sex with his wife quite frequently until he started to
                practice what is called 'brahmacarya' in order to purify himself for
                his destinied spiritual mission to free India from the British raj.

                Steve
              • Judy Baumbauer
                winters_diana schrieb: No - Rudolf Steiner out of *public* taxpayer-funded education, as anthroposophy is a religious movement and
                Message 7 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                  winters_diana <diana.winters@...> schrieb:

                  No - Rudolf Steiner out of *public* taxpayer-funded education, as
                  anthroposophy is a religious movement and religious movements aren't
                  permitted entanglement with public education in the US, per the
                  Constitution.
                   
                  J: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
                  religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
                  freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
                  grievances."
                   
                  Actually it doesn't say what you say, although the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way. I think they were wrong and hope that some day that interpretation will be corrected. What it means, imo, is that there can be no state religion (meaning church). When my dad was a child in public school in the U.S., they sang Christian hymns in assembly. Intepretations change. Furthermore, Diana, you are wrong in stating that anthroposophy is a religious movement; it is a *spiritual* movement - which is different. 
                   
                  D: Private Waldorf schools we have no wish to see Rudolf
                  Steiner's influence removed from (were such a thing even remotely
                  possible). (We might indeed argue that bringing in other influences
                  in Waldorf schools could be quite healthy, and that Steiner's
                  educational views can and should be critiqued. He was quite wrong on
                  a number of points, such as children under 7 being damaged by
                  reading.)
                   
                  J: That isn't true, Diana. The idea is that children don't need to read before the seventh year (6 years of age), and forcing them to do so can be detrimental. Also, they learn to read better and with more enthusiasm when the time is ripe for it.
                   
                  D: Critics wish mainly to see the Steiner/Waldorf schools
                  explain the influence of Steiner in the curriculum and the life of
                  the school more fully to prospective customers, so that only
                  anthroposophists and various other people who fully comprehend what
                  anthroposophy is, and feel their family is compatible, will enroll
                  their children making this fully informed decision.
                  J: Sorry, Diana, but that's plain silly. How can you expect people new to it to fully comprehend what anthroposophy is? I'm certainly not there yet. And the schools do explain that anthropsophy is behind the pedagogy. Parents can take it or leave it. 
                  >Critics mostly as atheists

                  D: Critics are most definitely not mostly atheists, but Dottie repeats
                  this because it is a simple argument to remember, and she uses it as
                  a slur. It is always easier to lump people together into clearcut
                  categories, even though in real life critics are from a wide variety
                  of spiritual backgrounds, and there is no single point we have in
                  common in terms of religion or spiritual beliefs. It's sad to think
                  that Dottie imagines there are still people who will shudder at the
                  idea of a dirty, scary atheist. She uses the word the way "Communist"
                  used to be used, in fact she throws all these words around together
                  sometimes, simply hoping they still frighten some people. I get the
                  impression it works on people like Gaelman, who then reply with their
                  own prejudices showing, writing mildly that they've known some
                  atheists, and they were 'characters'. Like atheists aren't just
                  people on the bus or at the office, or living next door to you, whom
                  you might see putting our their trash or walking their dog (shudder).
                  It is sad to hear such ignorant conversations going on today, and
                  such fear.

                  J: Maybe you have a point there. I pity atheists, I really do.
                  >and Christian fundamentalists against anyone being able to think for
                  >themselves.
                  >They make very strange bedfellows but found a way to meet their most
                  >pressing needs: no waldorf. This clears the groundway for the
                  >fundamentalists when waldorf is out of the way to bring their own
                  >fundy view of spirit meaning.

                  D: Fundamentalists as we probably all know are pretty savvy politically.
                  I think that the fundamentalists who supported PLANS viewed the cause
                  as win-win for them. If PLANS were to lose in court, and Waldorf were
                  declared permissible in public schools, then the door would be open
                  for other religious movements to run public schools, including of
                  course Christian fundamentalists. If PLANS wins, then of course they
                  are happy to see a competing religious movement, one that they
                  consider severely misguided if not downright Satanic, lose the right
                  to proselytize public school children. They feel that if
                  anthroposophists can proselytize public school children, they
                  (anthroposophists) should not be denied the same right. (They're
                  right.)

                  J: I know you mean (fundamentalists). And the critics accept support from those people. Isn't that kind of strange?
                  Judy




                  Yahoo! Messenger - kostenlos* mit Familie und Freunden von PC zu PC telefonieren .

                • dottie zold
                  I guess it really depends on whose thinking about celibacy and what that means to each individual according to their upbringing. I ve been that for the last 8
                  Message 8 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                    I guess it really depends on whose thinking about
                    celibacy and what that means to each individual
                    according to their upbringing.

                    I've been that for the last 8 or so years or more. And
                    its never been because it was sinful or anything like
                    that. I think intimate relations can be very very
                    beautiful. I just think something happens sometimes
                    and its not because of something someone read or did
                    its more like it just comes about naturallly that it
                    is kinda funny to be doing that intimate act. Its just
                    funny.

                    And my impression was that people chase the orgasm,
                    not generally or specifically, and mistake it for love
                    in a way. I mean that was my impression when I started
                    to feel into what that was for us human beings and
                    what it was for spiritual beings. There just seems to
                    be another way that leads or lends to another
                    conception of our higher selfs here on earth. And if
                    we are in a class to figure out this aspect of the
                    spiritual while in the physical it seemed most natural
                    to wake up to what some might call a higher
                    understanding or the next step of understanding of the
                    relationship to the higher worlds.

                    I guess there are so many ways of looking at it and
                    sinful is not how I ever saw intimate relationships.

                    Best,
                    Dottie



                    --- Judy Baumbauer <judy.baumbauer@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > dottie zold <dottie_z@...> schrieb: p.s.
                    > can you supply what you called a 'serious'
                    > biographer pertaining
                    > to Gandhi. And it would be true that most if not all
                    > of the higher
                    > enlightened folks who have taught mankind were
                    > celibate or so I have
                    > read in most books I perused over the years.
                    >
                    > J: Gandhi's Truth, by Erik H. Erikson and Gandhi's
                    > Passion, by Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi may have become
                    > celibate, but he had children. Personally I am wary
                    > of celibacy because it implies that sex is sinful -
                    > and how can something natural that produces children
                    > be sinful? As far as Rudolf is concerned, I've asked
                    > around a lot about this, and the conclusion is the
                    > same as that indicated on this list: no one knows. I
                    > think this is the case with most other "higher
                    > enlightened folks" as well.
                    >
                    > Judy
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren
                    > Freunden von PC zu PC!
                    > Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • dottie zold
                    It is said that Gandhi offered his wife a divorce when he realized that he was moving in a different direction. He said because he would no longer have
                    Message 9 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                      It is said that Gandhi offered his wife a divorce
                      when he realized that he was moving in a different
                      direction. He said because he would no longer have
                      intimate relationships and that beings she had married
                      him when he was intimately active, and that it was
                      something she had not known that this would happen
                      before they married, he would like her to make a
                      choice for her own life. She chose to stay.

                      Dottie


                      p.s. can
                      > you supply what
                      > you called a 'serious' biographer pertaining
                      > > to Gandhi. And it would be true that most if not
                      > all of the higher
                      > > enlightened folks who have taught mankind were
                      > celibate or so I
                      > have
                      > > read in most books I perused over the years.
                      > >
                      > > J: Gandhi's Truth, by Erik H. Erikson and
                      > Gandhi's Passion, by
                      > Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi may have become celibate,
                      > but he had
                      > children. Personally I am wary of celibacy because
                      > it implies that
                      > sex is sinful - and how can something natural that
                      > produces children
                      > be sinful? As far as Rudolf is concerned, I've asked
                      > around a lot
                      > about this, and the conclusion is the same as that
                      > indicated on this
                      > list: no one knows. I think this is the case with
                      > most other "higher
                      > enlightened folks" as well.
                      > >
                      > > Judy
                      >
                      > Gandhi not only had children, but he was rather
                      > highly sex-charged,
                      > demanding sex with his wife quite frequently until
                      > he started to
                      > practice what is called 'brahmacarya' in order to
                      > purify himself for
                      > his destinied spiritual mission to free India from
                      > the British raj.
                      >
                      > Steve
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • dottie zold
                      Anybody can check back on the critics list about five years or so and read the arguments of the people and what religious affiliation they have to religion or
                      Message 10 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                        Anybody can check back on the critics list about five
                        years or so and read the arguments of the people and
                        what religious affiliation they have to religion or
                        non religion. It is really clear when reading those
                        years what the big issue was for the critics and why
                        it was so. And most of it had to do with those who
                        were calling themselves 'Christians with a little 'c'
                        and Freethinkers, and Buddhists for Christ,Atheists
                        for Christ and so forth.

                        I take no issue with atheists as most of my early los
                        angeles friends were of this thought. And we loved to
                        debate. However when the critics try to hide who and
                        what they were in the beginning as well as the
                        Christian Watchtower group that supports them and
                        calls the most benign groups 'cults' they are not
                        telling the truth. And that is the issue. Not that
                        they are atheist or non atheist but they are lying
                        when they try to hide it like Diana is.

                        As far as the Communist with a little 'c' that would
                        be directly something that came out about Peter S.'s
                        affiliation. Again no big deal. However to try and
                        hide it is a lie again.

                        Best,
                        Dottie

                        --- Judy Baumbauer <judy.baumbauer@...> wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > winters_diana <diana.winters@...> schrieb:
                        >
                        > No - Rudolf Steiner out of *public* taxpayer-funded
                        > education, as
                        > anthroposophy is a religious movement and religious
                        > movements aren't
                        > permitted entanglement with public education in the
                        > US, per the
                        > Constitution.
                        >
                        > J: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
                        > establishment of
                        > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
                        > or abridging the
                        > freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
                        > the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
                        > the Government for a redress of
                        > grievances."
                        >
                        > Actually it doesn't say what you say, although the
                        > Supreme Court has interpreted it that way. I think
                        > they were wrong and hope that some day that
                        > interpretation will be corrected. What it means,
                        > imo, is that there can be no state religion (meaning
                        > church). When my dad was a child in public school in
                        > the U.S., they sang Christian hymns in assembly.
                        > Intepretations change. Furthermore, Diana, you are
                        > wrong in stating that anthroposophy is a religious
                        > movement; it is a *spiritual* movement - which is
                        > different.
                        >
                        > D: Private Waldorf schools we have no wish to see
                        > Rudolf
                        > Steiner's influence removed from (were such a thing
                        > even remotely
                        > possible). (We might indeed argue that bringing in
                        > other influences
                        > in Waldorf schools could be quite healthy, and that
                        > Steiner's
                        > educational views can and should be critiqued. He
                        > was quite wrong on
                        > a number of points, such as children under 7 being
                        > damaged by
                        > reading.)
                        >
                        > J: That isn't true, Diana. The idea is that
                        > children don't need to read before the seventh year
                        > (6 years of age), and forcing them to do so can be
                        > detrimental. Also, they learn to read better and
                        > with more enthusiasm when the time is ripe for it.
                        >
                        > D: Critics wish mainly to see the Steiner/Waldorf
                        > schools
                        > explain the influence of Steiner in the curriculum
                        > and the life of
                        > the school more fully to prospective customers, so
                        > that only
                        > anthroposophists and various other people who fully
                        > comprehend what
                        > anthroposophy is, and feel their family is
                        > compatible, will enroll
                        > their children making this fully informed decision.
                        >
                        > J: Sorry, Diana, but that's plain silly. How can
                        > you expect people new to it to fully comprehend what
                        > anthroposophy is? I'm certainly not there yet. And
                        > the schools do explain that anthropsophy is behind
                        > the pedagogy. Parents can take it or leave it.
                        >
                        > >Critics mostly as atheists
                        >
                        > D: Critics are most definitely not mostly atheists,
                        > but Dottie repeats
                        > this because it is a simple argument to remember,
                        > and she uses it as
                        > a slur. It is always easier to lump people together
                        > into clearcut
                        > categories, even though in real life critics are
                        > from a wide variety
                        > of spiritual backgrounds, and there is no single
                        > point we have in
                        > common in terms of religion or spiritual beliefs.
                        > It's sad to think
                        > that Dottie imagines there are still people who will
                        > shudder at the
                        > idea of a dirty, scary atheist. She uses the word
                        > the way "Communist"
                        > used to be used, in fact she throws all these words
                        > around together
                        > sometimes, simply hoping they still frighten some
                        > people. I get the
                        > impression it works on people like Gaelman, who then
                        > reply with their
                        > own prejudices showing, writing mildly that they've
                        > known some
                        > atheists, and they were 'characters'. Like atheists
                        > aren't just
                        > people on the bus or at the office, or living next
                        > door to you, whom
                        > you might see putting our their trash or walking
                        > their dog (shudder).
                        > It is sad to hear such ignorant conversations going
                        > on today, and
                        > such fear.
                        >
                        > J: Maybe you have a point there. I pity atheists, I
                        > really do.
                        >
                        > >and Christian fundamentalists against anyone
                        > being able to think for
                        > >themselves.
                        > >They make very strange bedfellows but found a way
                        > to meet their most
                        > >pressing needs: no waldorf. This clears the
                        > groundway for the
                        > >fundamentalists when waldorf is out of the way to
                        > bring their own
                        > >fundy view of spirit meaning.
                        >
                        > D: Fundamentalists as we probably all know are
                        > pretty savvy politically.
                        > I think that the fundamentalists who supported PLANS
                        > viewed the cause
                        > as win-win for them. If PLANS were to lose in court,
                        > and Waldorf were
                        > declared permissible in public schools, then the
                        > door would be open
                        > for other religious movements to run public schools,
                        > including of
                        > course Christian fundamentalists. If PLANS wins,
                        > then of course they
                        > are happy to see a competing religious movement, one
                        > that they
                        > consider severely misguided if not downright
                        > Satanic, lose the right
                        > to proselytize public school children. They feel
                        > that if
                        > anthroposophists can proselytize public school
                        > children, they
                        > (anthroposophists) should not be denied the same
                        > right. (They're
                        > right.)
                        >
                        > J: I know you mean (fundamentalists). And the
                        > critics accept support from those people. Isn't that
                        > kind of strange?
                        >
                        > Judy
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Yahoo! Messenger - kostenlos* mit Familie und
                        > Freunden von PC zu PC telefonieren.


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Judy Baumbauer
                        dottie zold schrieb: I guess it really depends on whose thinking about celibacy and what that means to each individual according to
                        Message 11 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                          dottie zold <dottie_z@...> schrieb:
                          I guess it really depends on whose thinking about
                          celibacy and what that means to each individual
                          according to their upbringing.

                          I've been that for the last 8 or so years or more. And
                          its never been because it was sinful or anything like
                          that. I think intimate relations can be very very
                          beautiful. I just think something happens sometimes
                          and its not because of something someone read or did
                          its more like it just comes about naturallly that it
                          is kinda funny to be doing that intimate act. Its just
                          funny.

                          And my impression was that people chase the orgasm,
                          not generally or specifically, and mistake it for love
                          in a way. I mean that was my impression when I started
                          to feel into what that was for us human beings and
                          what it was for spiritual beings. There just seems to
                          be another way that leads or lends to another
                          conception of our higher selfs here on earth. And if
                          we are in a class to figure out this aspect of the
                          spiritual while in the physical it seemed most natural
                          to wake up to what some might call a higher
                          understanding or the next step of understanding of the
                          relationship to the higher worlds.

                          I guess there are so many ways of looking at it and
                          sinful is not how I ever saw intimate relationships.

                          That's cool, Dottie, but what if "Mr. Right" came along, someone like...I don't know... like Frank for example. Would you still feel the same way?
                          Judy
                           



                          Keine Lust auf Tippen? Rufen Sie Ihre Freunde einfach an.
                          Yahoo! Messenger. Jetzt installieren .

                        • Mike T
                          Judy, You re a new member around here and you make such assertions re Dottie and Frank as if you know they have a friendship - and please, don t even try to
                          Message 12 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                            Judy,
                            You're a new member around here and you make such assertions re Dottie and
                            Frank as if you know they have a friendship - and please, don't even try to
                            fein coincidence here. Your posts are far too familiar (meaning you have too
                            much familiarity for a new comer); so please stop your pretence and your
                            game.
                            Mike T


                            >From: Judy Baumbauer <judy.baumbauer@...>
                            >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                            >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                            >Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: WC and Christian fundies (was: A
                            >guess/A view)
                            >Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 02:53:29 +0200 (CEST)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >dottie zold <dottie_z@...> schrieb: I guess it really depends on
                            >whose thinking about
                            >celibacy and what that means to each individual
                            >according to their upbringing.
                            >
                            >I've been that for the last 8 or so years or more. And
                            >its never been because it was sinful or anything like
                            >that. I think intimate relations can be very very
                            >beautiful. I just think something happens sometimes
                            >and its not because of something someone read or did
                            >its more like it just comes about naturallly that it
                            >is kinda funny to be doing that intimate act. Its just
                            >funny.
                            >
                            >And my impression was that people chase the orgasm,
                            >not generally or specifically, and mistake it for love
                            >in a way. I mean that was my impression when I started
                            >to feel into what that was for us human beings and
                            >what it was for spiritual beings. There just seems to
                            >be another way that leads or lends to another
                            >conception of our higher selfs here on earth. And if
                            >we are in a class to figure out this aspect of the
                            >spiritual while in the physical it seemed most natural
                            >to wake up to what some might call a higher
                            >understanding or the next step of understanding of the
                            >relationship to the higher worlds.
                            >
                            >I guess there are so many ways of looking at it and
                            >sinful is not how I ever saw intimate relationships.
                            >
                            >That's cool, Dottie, but what if "Mr. Right" came along, someone like...I
                            >don't know... like Frank for example. Would you still feel the same way?
                            > Judy
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >---------------------------------
                            >Keine Lust auf Tippen? Rufen Sie Ihre Freunde einfach an.
                            > Yahoo! Messenger. Jetzt installieren .

                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Search for local singles online @ Lavalife - Click here
                            http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D22141&_t=751140432&_r=emailtagline_may_search&_m=EXT
                          • dottie zold
                            ... ABSOLUTELY NOT! :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            Message 13 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                              Judy:
                              > >That's cool, Dottie, but what if "Mr. Right" came
                              > along, someone like...I
                              > >don't know... like Frank for example. Would you
                              > still feel the same way?

                              ABSOLUTELY NOT! :)

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                            • winters_diana
                              ... Yes, it s a matter of interpretation. I agree with you this is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it, IMO correctly. Some people disagree. ... Right.
                              Message 14 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                I wrote:
                                >No - Rudolf Steiner out of *public* taxpayer-funded education, as
                                >anthroposophy is a religious movement and religious movements aren't
                                >permitted entanglement with public education in the US, per the
                                >Constitution.

                                Judy:
                                >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
                                >religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
                                >freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
                                >peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
                                >of grievances."


                                >Actually it doesn't say what you say, although the Supreme Court has
                                >interpreted it that way.

                                Yes, it's a matter of interpretation. I agree with you this is how
                                the Supreme Court has interpreted it, IMO correctly. Some people
                                disagree.

                                >I think they were wrong and hope that some day that interpretation
                                >will be corrected. What it means, imo, is that there can be no state
                                >religion (meaning church).

                                Right. It's also been interpreted to mean that the government can't
                                play favorites among religion, which would preclude funding them.
                                Obviously, the first thing the state would do in establishing a state
                                religion is to fund it. That "wall of separation" is kept
                                deliberately quite high to prevent a particular religion getting a
                                foothold in this fashion. When the government funds a religious
                                charter school, it isn't attempting to set up that religion as
                                a "state religion," of course, but the notion behind the separation
                                is that allowing this would eventually pave the way for that to
                                happen. Other groups will immediately begin demanding that they get
                                funding too. I think it's crystal clear that that will happen
                                *yesterday* once this principle is breached.

                                Anthroposophists ought to recognize that the existing protections are
                                in their best interests. The government of the United States in the
                                present day is *very* inclined to go as far as they can go in setting
                                up a state religion - and I hate to break it to you, but it isn't
                                going to be anthroposophy.

                                >When my dad was a child in public school in the U.S., they sang
                                >Christian hymns in assembly. Intepretations change. Furthermore,
                                >Diana, you are wrong in stating that anthroposophy is a religious
                                >movement; it is a *spiritual* movement - which is different.

                                Obviously, there are a variety of opinions here, too. Merely for the
                                purposes of figuring out whether it's a movement the government
                                should be funding, it's religious enough for me. If anybody can say
                                they're "not a religion" and act as religious as you folks, god only
                                knows what an actual religion would look like.

                                >He was quite wrong on a number of points, such as children under 7
                                being damaged by reading.)

                                >J: That isn't true, Diana. The idea is that children don't need to
                                >read before the seventh year (6 years of age),

                                Whether a child "needs" to read before age 7 doesn't have a "yes/no"
                                answer, as it depends on a variety of things, mainly the child.
                                Rudolf Steiner's opinion doesn't add much to the discussion.

                                >and forcing them to do so can be detrimental.

                                I agree, but few people advocate forcing them. I do agree the push
                                toward earlier and earlier in some schools is probably detrimental,
                                at least in the way it is being implemented (eliminating recess, for
                                instance), but not for the reasons Steiner might have said, nor did
                                Steiener have a solution to this.


                                >Also, they learn to read better and with more enthusiasm when the
                                >time is ripe for it.

                                I agree again, I just don't think Rudolf Steiner knew when the time
                                was ripe for every child because of things he saw on the astral
                                plane. When a child is ready to read is individual. In schools, of
                                course, it's not always easy to accommodate the individual, and you
                                need methods that work for a large number of children. Obviously,
                                most school systems don't consider a mystic's clairvoyant visions as
                                too helpful in figuring out a good method, or its timing.

                                > D: Critics wish mainly to see the Steiner/Waldorf schools
                                > explain the influence of Steiner in the curriculum and the life of
                                > the school more fully to prospective customers, so that only
                                > anthroposophists and various other people who fully comprehend what
                                > anthroposophy is, and feel their family is compatible, will enroll
                                > their children making this fully informed decision.

                                > J: Sorry, Diana, but that's plain silly. How can you expect people
                                >new to it to fully comprehend what anthroposophy is? I'm certainly
                                >not there yet. And the schools do explain that anthropsophy is
                                >behind the pedagogy. Parents can take it or leave it.

                                Their children can't, and the parents are responsible for their
                                education. You see it as silly, I don't. I ask them to inform the
                                parents far better than most are presently doing. The basic
                                information they need is pretty simple - it's not asking them to
                                become a serious student of anthroposophy in the manner you people
                                here are doing. Few people are interested in that.


                                >I pity atheists, I really do.

                                It's not news to me some people feel this way, but nevertheless, it's
                                still a remark that strikes an actual atheist as hostile. I'm sure
                                you mean it in the nicest possible way <cringe>

                                > J: I know you mean (fundamentalists). And the critics accept
                                >support from those people. Isn't that kind of strange?

                                What is strange? Later you say it is unethical, too, but there's no
                                indication of why.

                                Diana
                              • winters_diana
                                ... Yes, they can, what is your point? ... You are recalling one specific conversation, in which you were flabbergasted to learn that there were people in the
                                Message 15 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                  Dottie:

                                  >Anybody can check back on the critics list about five
                                  >years or so and read the arguments of the people and
                                  >what religious affiliation they have to religion or
                                  >non religion.

                                  Yes, they can, what is your point?

                                  >It is really clear when reading those years what the big issue was
                                  >for the critics and why it was so. And most of it had to do with
                                  >those who were calling themselves 'Christians with a little 'c'
                                  >and Freethinkers, and Buddhists for Christ,Atheists
                                  >for Christ and so forth.

                                  You are recalling one specific conversation, in which you were
                                  flabbergasted to learn that there were people in the world who called
                                  themselves "Buddhists for Christ" or "atheists for Christ," and that
                                  sort of thing. I don't think there was anyone there actually calling
                                  themselves that. I remember telling you to type "atheists for Christ"
                                  or something like that into google if you were so uncomprehending
                                  that such a thing was possible. As someone recently noted here, there
                                  are more things under the sun than your philosophy . . . (or whatever
                                  it was).

                                  The "big issue" for the critics isn't that they are all any
                                  particular religious affiliation, or lack of religious affiliation.
                                  It appears to be extremely difficult for you to understand that
                                  people who *aren't* all one religion can agree on anything and even
                                  act together for a purpose that isn't pushing a specific religious
                                  agenda.

                                  >I take no issue with atheists as most of my early los
                                  > angeles friends were of this thought. And we loved to
                                  > debate. However when the critics try to hide who and
                                  > what they were in the beginning as well as the
                                  > Christian Watchtower group that supports them and
                                  > calls the most benign groups 'cults' they are not
                                  > telling the truth. And that is the issue. Not that
                                  > they are atheist or non atheist but they are lying
                                  > when they try to hide it like Diana is.

                                  What is Diana hiding or lying about? Would you clarify this please?
                                  Has Diana lied about the fact that she is an atheist?

                                  > As far as the Communist with a little 'c' that would
                                  > be directly something that came out about Peter S.'s
                                  > affiliation. Again no big deal. However to try and
                                  > hide it is a lie again.

                                  I don't understand what you are saying someone is hiding or lying
                                  about. As you note, these conversations can all be found there, they
                                  were held in public, so if someone was trying to hide something, it
                                  was foolish of them.

                                  Diana
                                • Judy Baumbauer
                                  Mike T schrieb: Judy, You re a new member around here and you make such assertions re Dottie and Frank as if you know they have a
                                  Message 16 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                    Mike T <leosun_75@...> schrieb:
                                    Judy,
                                    You're a new member around here and you make such assertions re Dottie and
                                    Frank as if you know they have a friendship - and please, don't even try to
                                    fein coincidence here. Your posts are far too familiar (meaning you have too
                                    much familiarity for a new comer); so please stop your pretence and your
                                    game.
                                    Mike T

                                    J: I had no idea of an intimate relationship between Dottie and Frank. I only chose Frank AS AN EXAMPLE because from what I've read on this list he's the most intelligent, knowlegable and gentlemanly, which, however, isn't saying much.
                                     
                                    Judy


                                    Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
                                    Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!

                                  • Judy Baumbauer
                                    ... ABSOLUTELY NOT! :) Well, I m glad to hear that you re not a fanatical celibate, Dottie. I m sure that Frank is relieved as well, but he s probably too
                                    Message 17 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                      dottie zold <dottie_z@...> schrieb:
                                      Judy:
                                      > >That's cool, Dottie, but what if "Mr. Right" came
                                      > along, someone like...I
                                      > >don't know... like Frank for example. Would you
                                      > still feel the same way?

                                      ABSOLUTELY NOT! :)
                                      Well, I'm glad to hear that you're not a fanatical celibate, Dottie. I'm sure that Frank is relieved as well, but he's probably too modest to say so.
                                      Judy


                                      Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
                                      Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!
                                    • Joel Wendt
                                      Diana and Judy were having a discussion of what the Critics seek with their law suit against public education along Waldorf lines, and I thought while this is
                                      Message 18 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                        Diana and Judy were having a discussion of what the Critics seek with
                                        their law suit against public education along Waldorf lines, and I
                                        thought while this is an anthroposophy list and not a Waldorf critics
                                        list, it might be useful to see what Anthroposophy has to say regarding
                                        this question.

                                        The place to begin, as always, is with thinking. In this case thinking
                                        needs to take hold of the gesture of history that has manifested in the
                                        phenomena of the issue of Church and State in our time. This is not a
                                        new question before humanity, and nothing that happens in the present
                                        can be divorced from its roots (honor thy father and mother).

                                        In brief, from the founding of Western Civilization, cultural life and
                                        institutions, while trying to give birth to the life of rights (the idea
                                        of the State and the Citizen) as a separate element in the eventual
                                        threefolding of the social organism, nevertheless intermingled. Up to
                                        the French and American Revolutions, in the ideas of the divine right of
                                        kings and in the existence of both civil courts ands ecclesiastical
                                        courts, these two spheres remained somewhat co-dependent.

                                        The founders understood this instinctively and sought consciously to
                                        make the State take a form in which this co-dependence was extinguished
                                        on the level of organized social form. Obviously, in the soul of
                                        individual human beings, both religious duties and citizenship duties
                                        would co-exist, but the form of the State needed to be free of any
                                        influence of any single religion.

                                        Out of this striving came a number seemingly contrary impulses, such as
                                        oaths on the bible at the same time that the first amendment (and this
                                        is important for not only was this idea put first among the amendments,
                                        it was first within the first amendment) set out the basic rule:
                                        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
                                        prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...etc."

                                        Our courts in the present have decided this means that the State can't
                                        promote religion in any way (prayer in schools or religious monuments on
                                        public property etc), nor can it restrain religious expression (such as
                                        the use of peyote in the Native American Church). Unfortunately,
                                        nothing is black and white, and because in individual souls the two
                                        duties (religious and citizenship) are intermingled, people have a hard
                                        time separating this out in terms of its meaning in the life of rights.

                                        Christ seemed very much to understand this, with: "Render unto Caesar
                                        the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's"
                                        - separating moral duty from legal duty, which is something taught in
                                        all law schools as a kind of abc.

                                        A lot of people bring in the confusion, that exists between the two
                                        within their own souls, into the problem and a lot of these people
                                        become members of the State (presidents, legislators and judges), so
                                        that in our present time everyone has their opinion about what is right
                                        (the question of what is right for all - that is the problem of equality
                                        - being the central impulse under the life of rights in the threefold
                                        social organism.

                                        Then along comes the Waldorf movement, and Charter Schools.

                                        Clearly Steiner wanted the Waldorf Schools to be free and independent of
                                        the State, as much as possible, but given that the State had its own
                                        view of the matter a kind of tension arose. Steiner actually went
                                        further, and insisted that all education should be free of the State,
                                        for education was a matter for the cultural life of humanity, not for
                                        the life of rights.

                                        The basis for his idea here was that cultural impulses were most healthy
                                        when rooted in the ideal of freedom (the teacher has to stand as an
                                        upright free human being before the class because the most profound
                                        "content" of his teaching is his own being - his example). The life of
                                        rights had to be based on equality - the rules needed to be applicable
                                        to all, while the economic life needed to be rooted in brother and
                                        sisterhood, for there were limits to what the Earth could provide and
                                        this had to be shared (as with the feeding of the 5,000).

                                        Of course, real life is messy, and so as Waldorf has tried to incarnate,
                                        it has been all over the place, presenting is own version of MPD.
                                        Meanwhile, as everyone who is even just a little bit awake well knows,
                                        the State has managed to nearly ruin public education, because the
                                        State's motives are also all over the place.

                                        Enter Charter schools...

                                        In Charter schools the ideal of freedom tries to overcome the excesses
                                        of State management. The State provides the money, and the founders of
                                        the school administer the school outside the confusions and idiocy of
                                        the bureaucrats. There are a lot of variations, but generally the
                                        founders of the Charter school have a lot of freedom as to educational
                                        content and means and the qualifications of teachers.

                                        A lot of people, for many different reasons, don't like this.

                                        Steiner also wanted the cultural life (which includes schools) to be
                                        funded by excess capital created in the economic sphere, not by taxes
                                        raised in the life of rights.

                                        So in Charter schools, especially those founded by people who want to
                                        incorporate Waldorf educational principles and methods, this confusion
                                        of the three spheres manifests in a wonderful archetypal fashion. One
                                        group, the founders, want freedom in how education is to be carried
                                        out. The State, in authorizing Charter schools has offered public
                                        money to finance these educationally somewhat free social forms (in
                                        various ways the State tries to control curriculum, with "standards").
                                        Some citizens, exercising their role, insist that public money can't be
                                        used for a private "religious" purpose.

                                        Then we get to court with a couple of interesting issues: What is
                                        "religion"? And who has standing (the right to appear) in the court to
                                        assert that public money can't be spent on "religion"?

                                        I can't remember precisely what the Court did with the religion question
                                        (maybe ducked it), but if memory serves, on the standing issue, PLANS
                                        was denied.

                                        Pure observation of the slowly developing social organism suggests that
                                        certain currents (streams) run through it. For example, the tendency to
                                        structure and form (laws and traditions etc.) such as slavery and
                                        segregation, eventually run into the higher power of social conscience,
                                        such that the social organism constantly rejects what does live and
                                        isn't adaptable.

                                        In a certain sense it would seem that Waldorf and the Critics want
                                        similar things, but neither is doing a very good job of getting the law
                                        and tradition to give way to the higher principle. Waldorf wants the
                                        art of teaching to be free from any influence of the State, and the
                                        Critics don't want the State to be the means through which anything that
                                        smacks of religion is financed.

                                        Maybe they should pool their resources and instead of fighting each
                                        other, learn to lobby the legislature (where law is made) so that we
                                        have all kinds of schools, none of them ruled by the State, and no one's
                                        public money (taxes) is spent on them, but rather only the gift money
                                        from the excess capital of vital commercial enterprize.

                                        What a dreamer you are Wendt!

                                        love,
                                        joel
                                      • Judy Baumbauer
                                        winters_diana schrieb: Right. It s also been interpreted to mean that the government can t play favorites among religion, which
                                        Message 19 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                          winters_diana <diana.winters@...> schrieb:

                                          Right. It's also been interpreted to mean that the government can't
                                          play favorites among religion, which would preclude funding them.
                                          Obviously, the first thing the state would do in establishing a state
                                          religion is to fund it. That "wall of separation" is kept
                                          deliberately quite high to prevent a particular religion getting a
                                          foothold in this fashion. When the government funds a religious
                                          charter school, it isn't attempting to set up that religion as
                                          a "state religion," of course, but the notion behind the separation
                                          is that allowing this would eventually pave the way for that to
                                          happen. Other groups will immediately begin demanding that they get
                                          funding too. I think it's crystal clear that that will happen
                                          *yesterday* once this principle is breached.
                                          F: So what? If religious schools and Waldorf schools get state funding - which is the case here in Germany and other European countries - it saves the taxpayers a lot of money because private schools don't indulge in burocratic waste and are generally more efficient. And these countries are all democratic. 

                                          D: Anthroposophists ought to recognize that the existing protections are
                                          in their best interests. The government of the United States in the
                                          present day is *very* inclined to go as far as they can go in setting
                                          up a state religion - and I hate to break it to you, but it isn't
                                          going to be anthroposophy.

                                          J: The churches the present govt favors are those of the conservative, religious right, the same ones, I'm told, who support PLANS. Anthroposophy on the other hand is opposed to state intervention in in spiritual-cultural affairs, especially education.
                                           
                                          J:>When my dad was a child in public school in the U.S., they sang
                                          >Christian hymns in assembly. Intepretations change. Furthermore,
                                          >Diana, you are wrong in stating that anthroposophy is a religious
                                          >movement; it is a *spiritual* movement - which is different.

                                          D: Obviously, there are a variety of opinions here, too. Merely for the
                                          purposes of figuring out whether it's a movement the government
                                          should be funding, it's religious enough for me. If anybody can say
                                          they're "not a religion" and act as religious as you folks, god only
                                          knows what an actual religion would look like.

                                          J: To act religious is not synonymous with founding a religion.
                                           
                                          D: >He was quite wrong on a number of points, such as children under 7
                                          being damaged by reading.)

                                          J: That isn't true, Diana. The idea is that children don't need to
                                          >read before the seventh year (6 years of age),

                                          D: Whether a child "needs" to read before age 7 doesn't have a "yes/no"
                                          answer, as it depends on a variety of things, mainly the child.
                                          Rudolf Steiner's opinion doesn't add much to the discussion.
                                          J: No, no child *needs* to read before the seventh year (6).
                                          J:>and forcing them to do so can be detrimental.

                                          D: I agree, but few people advocate forcing them.
                                           
                                          J: Not true. State education in all countries I am aware of forces children to learn to read as early as possible, under the mistaken impression: "the earlier the better".
                                           
                                          D: I do agree the push toward earlier and earlier in some schools is probably detrimental, at least in the way it is being implemented (eliminating recess, for instance), but not for the reasons Steiner might have said, nor did
                                          Steiener have a solution to this.

                                          J: Steiner's solution was very simple: start later when they are more mature.
                                          J: >Also, they learn to read better and with more enthusiasm when the
                                          >time is ripe for it.

                                          D: I agree again, I just don't think Rudolf Steiner knew when the time
                                          was ripe for every child because of things he saw on the astral
                                          plane. When a child is ready to read is individual. In schools, of
                                          course, it's not always easy to accommodate the individual, and you
                                          need methods that work for a large number of children.
                                           
                                          J: What difference does it make how he knew it; common sense and experience indicate the same thing.
                                           
                                          D: Obviously, most school systems don't consider a mystic's clairvoyant visions as too helpful in figuring out a good method, or its timing.
                                           
                                          J: Most school systems are dismal failures. As you know, Steiner used a combination of clairvoyance and earthly experience to come to practical conclusions.
                                          > D: Critics wish mainly to see the Steiner/Waldorf schools
                                          > explain the influence of Steiner in the curriculum and the life of
                                          > the school more fully to prospective customers, so that only
                                          > anthroposophists and various other people who fully comprehend what
                                          > anthroposophy is, and feel their family is compatible, will enroll
                                          > their children making this fully informed decision.

                                          > J: Sorry, Diana, but that's plain silly. How can you expect people
                                          >new to it to fully comprehend what anthroposophy is? I'm certainly
                                          >not there yet. And the schools do explain that anthropsophy is
                                          >behind the pedagogy. Parents can take it or leave it.

                                          D: Their children can't, and the parents are responsible for their
                                          education. You see it as silly, I don't. I ask them to inform the
                                          parents far better than most are presently doing. The basic
                                          information they need is pretty simple - it's not asking them to
                                          become a serious student of anthroposophy in the manner you people
                                          here are doing. Few people are interested in that.

                                          J: I agree that it would be positive if parents were better informed. I think that most schools do what they can in this respect, but time and workload is a problem as well as the fact that, as you say, most people, including parents, aren't very interested, unfortunately.
                                          J: >I pity atheists, I really do.

                                          D: It's not news to me some people feel this way, but nevertheless, it's
                                          still a remark that strikes an actual atheist as hostile. I'm sure
                                          you mean it in the nicest possible way
                                          J: Yes, I see that, and it's always dangerous to generalize. But there are some atheists who are hostile. fe, those who go to the courts in order to exorcise God from education, claiming that the first amendment infringes on their rights. Once organized, atheism becomes a secular religion, and wins - often. 
                                          > J: I know you mean (fundamentalists). And the critics accept
                                          >support from those people. Isn't that kind of strange?

                                          D: What is strange? Later you say it is unethical, too, but there's no
                                          indication of why.

                                          J: Because it's like pacting with the devil: two groups with diametrically opposing ideologies uniting in order to defeat the middle group, which at least strives for the good.
                                           
                                          Judy



                                          Jetzt mit Yahoo! Messenger Tickets zur FIFA WM 2006 gewinnen.

                                        • Mike helsher
                                          ... Caesar ... God s - separating moral duty from legal duty, which is something taught in all law schools as a kind of abc. ... I touched on this topic a
                                          Message 20 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                            Joel wrote:


                                            > Christ seemed very much to understand this, with: "Render unto
                                            Caesar
                                            > the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are
                                            God's> - separating moral duty from legal duty, which is something
                                            taught in all law schools as a kind of abc.
                                            >
                                            >

                                            I touched on this topic a little while ago in a conversation with
                                            Terrence that I had hoped to get back to. I wrote then that I have
                                            faith in the idea that "we all vote with our money".

                                            I guess the question that bugs me with this "give to Caesar what's
                                            his" idea is:

                                            Who decides that it's his?

                                            Depending on how you interpret it, the idea of "turn the other cheek"
                                            comes to mind when when I think of the abuses of the IRS.

                                            On the other hand, someone told me a different version of the "turn
                                            the other cheek" story, in which there was a law that allowed for the
                                            early Christians to be slapped on ONLY one side of their face by the
                                            Romans. So the early Christians quickly learned to turn their faces
                                            to the side that was unlawful to slap. Thus the "turn the other
                                            cheek" idea now becomes an act of defiance.

                                            I think it boils down to an individual choice, and at this point, I
                                            chose not to give Caesar anything, if I can help it, because I don't
                                            believe that it is truly his.

                                            Mike
                                          • dottie zold
                                            J: I m sure that Frank is relieved as ... well you know Frank, just as modest as they come :) d __________________________________________________ Do You
                                            Message 21 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                              J:
                                              I'm sure that Frank is relieved as
                                              > well, but he's probably too modest to say so.

                                              well you know Frank, just as modest as they come :) d

                                              __________________________________________________
                                              Do You Yahoo!?
                                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                                            • Frank Smith
                                              Joel wrote: (snip) In a certain sense it would seem that Waldorf and the Critics want similar things, but neither is doing a very good job of getting the law
                                              Message 22 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                Joel wrote:
                                                (snip)
                                                In a certain sense it would seem that Waldorf and the
                                                Critics want similar things, but neither is doing a
                                                very good job of getting the law and tradition to give
                                                way to the higher principle. Waldorf wants the
                                                art of teaching to be free from any influence of the
                                                State, and the Critics don't want the State to be the
                                                means through which anything that smacks of religion
                                                is financed.

                                                Maybe they should pool their resources and instead of
                                                fighting each other, learn to lobby the legislature
                                                (where law is made) so that we have all kinds of
                                                schools, none of them ruled by the State, and no
                                                one's public money (taxes) is spent on them, but
                                                rather only the gift money from the excess capital of
                                                vital commercial enterprize.

                                                What a dreamer you are Wendt!

                                                Frank: There are various problems with this, Joel,
                                                although I like the idea. When I lived in Switzerland,
                                                where Steiner schools are not subsidized, I used to
                                                criticize the German W-schools (publicly, in writing),
                                                because they are thereby acting against Steiner's
                                                concept on non-interference. The Germans retorted that
                                                the state does not interfere pedagogically, so no
                                                problem there. Furthermore, if the schools had to
                                                depend on parents' fees alone, they would be elite
                                                schools. Once living in Germany, I revised my opinion.
                                                The state is remarkably tolerant with the W-schools
                                                there. One influence is inevitable, however: In order
                                                to go to university, a very difficult exam (Arbitur)
                                                must be passed - by everyone, state and private school
                                                students alike. The W-schools adapt to this by adding
                                                a 13th year onto the primary-secondary school cycle. A
                                                far as the U.S. is concerned, as the Waldorf schools
                                                are not subsidized, they do in fact become elite
                                                (upper-middle to upper classes) schools. Indeed this
                                                is the case in all countries where they don't have
                                                state subsidies. I don't see a unification of WCs and
                                                anthros on the horizon, because their goals are
                                                incompatible, and I consider the WC stand unjust. The
                                                charter schools, as I understand them (I'm not there,
                                                so gladly accept correction) essentially use the
                                                Waldorf method, avoiding anything which could be
                                                construed as religious, certain verses, festivals,
                                                etc. Therefore they aren't even Waldorf schools in the
                                                true sense of the word. Nevertheless, the WC would
                                                deny them public financing. They seem to be confusing
                                                independent Waldorf schools with charter schools which
                                                only use the method.
                                                In any case, if Waldorf pedagigy is to be a model,
                                                which imo it should be, it must be applied to public
                                                schools as well - else it remains a luxury for those
                                                who can afford it.
                                                Frank

                                                Frank Thomas Smith
                                                http://SouthernCrossReview.org

                                                __________________________________________________
                                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                http://mail.yahoo.com
                                              • Frank Smith
                                                ... I forgot this point: Sufficient gift money (to finance education) from excess capital of vital enterprize will never be voluntarily granted. However, tax
                                                Message 23 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                  --- Frank Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:

                                                  > Maybe they should pool their resources and instead
                                                  > of
                                                  > fighting each other, learn to lobby the legislature
                                                  > (where law is made) so that we have all kinds of
                                                  > schools, none of them ruled by the State, and no
                                                  > one's public money (taxes) is spent on them, but
                                                  > rather only the gift money from the excess capital
                                                  > of
                                                  > vital commercial enterprize.

                                                  I forgot this point: Sufficient gift money (to finance
                                                  education) from excess capital of vital enterprize
                                                  will never be voluntarily granted. However, tax money
                                                  can be considered gift money as well, albeit forced
                                                  gifts. In any case it is excess capital. In other
                                                  words, I believe that if the principal is applied, it
                                                  must be backed up by law. Tax money could be used with
                                                  the proviso that the state does not interfere in any
                                                  way with the schools' operation.
                                                  Frank


                                                  Frank Thomas Smith
                                                  http://SouthernCrossReview.org

                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                                                • Joel Wendt
                                                  Dear Mike, for a deeper consideration of render unto Caesar read the first part of my essay: Waking the Sleeping Giant: the Mission of Anthroposophy in
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                    Dear Mike,

                                                    for a deeper consideration of "render unto Caesar" read the first part
                                                    of my essay: "Waking the Sleeping Giant: the Mission of Anthroposophy in
                                                    America" at:
                                                    http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/wkslg.html

                                                    j.

                                                    Mike helsher wrote:

                                                    > Joel wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > > Christ seemed very much to understand this, with: "Render unto
                                                    > Caesar
                                                    > > the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are
                                                    > God's> - separating moral duty from legal duty, which is something
                                                    > taught in all law schools as a kind of abc.
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > I touched on this topic a little while ago in a conversation with
                                                    > Terrence that I had hoped to get back to. I wrote then that I have
                                                    > faith in the idea that "we all vote with our money".
                                                    >
                                                    > I guess the question that bugs me with this "give to Caesar what's
                                                    > his" idea is:
                                                    >
                                                    > Who decides that it's his?
                                                    >
                                                    > Depending on how you interpret it, the idea of "turn the other cheek"
                                                    > comes to mind when when I think of the abuses of the IRS.
                                                    >
                                                    > On the other hand, someone told me a different version of the "turn
                                                    > the other cheek" story, in which there was a law that allowed for the
                                                    > early Christians to be slapped on ONLY one side of their face by the
                                                    > Romans. So the early Christians quickly learned to turn their faces
                                                    > to the side that was unlawful to slap. Thus the "turn the other
                                                    > cheek" idea now becomes an act of defiance.
                                                    >
                                                    > I think it boils down to an individual choice, and at this point, I
                                                    > chose not to give Caesar anything, if I can help it, because I don't
                                                    > believe that it is truly his.
                                                    >
                                                    > Mike
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > SPONSORED LINKS
                                                    > Rudolf steiner
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Rudolf+steiner&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=9246Q4QXtW6SFeXTDT1GeA>
                                                    > Anthroposophy
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Anthroposophy&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=Kk1-kMaUm8bzwbM_C9IvzA>
                                                    > Occult
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Occult&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=q6JE59rw8iL8N54E2ackMw>
                                                    >
                                                    > Straight from the heart
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Straight+from+the+heart&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=FjO6ZXXC4c65BvtAAurXQg>
                                                    > Beyond belief
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Beyond+belief&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=ioca_VAk_Ci1OFYl6zSyIg>
                                                    > Occult book
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Occult+book&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=9CpAR6_REh7JRMW9QrhI3w>
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                                    >
                                                    > * Visit your group "anthroposophy_tomorrow
                                                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow>" on the web.
                                                    >
                                                    > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                    > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                                    >
                                                    > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                                    > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    >
                                                  • Deborah
                                                    Here is a link to the Friend of the Court brief from the Anthroposophical Society in America, which explains the anthro viewpoint on the court case.
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                      Here is a link to the "Friend of the Court" brief from the
                                                      Anthroposophical Society in America, which explains the anthro
                                                      viewpoint on the court case.

                                                      http://www.anthroposophy.org/NewsEvents/Brief.Amicus.040715rs.pdf

                                                      I haven't seen a rebuttal of this by PLANS. I have come across some
                                                      arguments in the WC (or was it here on AT) that the fact that a brief
                                                      was filed proves something about the relationship between the society
                                                      and the waldorf schools, but I can't remember what it was supposed to
                                                      prove.

                                                      PLANS has talked big about this case, but so far they haven't been
                                                      able to deliver much in the courtroom.

                                                      Deborah
                                                    • Deborah
                                                      Really briefly, The case with PLANS has gone around a bit. They got turned down on having standing to bring the case, appealed, and the case was reinstated.
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                        Really briefly,

                                                        The case with PLANS has gone around a bit.

                                                        They got turned down on having standing to bring the case, appealed,
                                                        and the case was reinstated.

                                                        Last September the case went to court, PLANS had no admissible
                                                        evidence and so lost the case (in 1/2 hour), but once again they
                                                        appealed.

                                                        I don't know how long the appeal process will take.

                                                        Deborah
                                                      • winters_diana
                                                        ... That s a good argument, and I m very happy to hear it, because in the countless discussions I ve had with anthroposophists on this point, no one has *ever*
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , May 8, 2006
                                                          Judy:

                                                          >So what? If religious schools and Waldorf schools get state
                                                          >funding - which is the case here in Germany and other European
                                                          >countries - it saves the taxpayers a lot of money because private
                                                          >schools don't indulge in burocratic waste and are generally more
                                                          >efficient. And these countries are all democratic.

                                                          That's a good argument, and I'm very happy to hear it, because in the
                                                          countless discussions I've had with anthroposophists on this point,
                                                          no one has *ever* raised it before, and I can never figure out why
                                                          they don't. (Unfortunately I think it's because this is mainly a case
                                                          of seeing dollar signs; the only comeback they can usually muster is
                                                          basically that Waldorf just really WANTS the state money. They've
                                                          rarely given any thought to these issues - they just think if Waldorf
                                                          is nifty, Waldorf should get funded however they want.) So I'm glad
                                                          you raised this point, because it's the best counter-argument I know
                                                          of against a strong separation between church and state.

                                                          I don't, personally, quite think that "So what?" sums up the case.
                                                          The separation of church and state is one of the bedrock bases of the
                                                          US constitution, and it can't, fortunately, be thrown away quite so
                                                          lightly as "So what?" The fact that most other Western democracies
                                                          haven't enshrined the separation principle, and yet continue to
                                                          function without turning into theocracies, is important. Also,
                                                          though, the religious passions and controversies seem not to rage as
                                                          virulently as they do here. The US is very religious – western Europe
                                                          is much more secular in comparison. I'm not sure anyone quite knows
                                                          where we'd wind up with all restrictions removed – religious
                                                          institutions just apply for, and handily receive, government money
                                                          for interesting projects? Quite possibly we'd end up with violent
                                                          religious conflict.

                                                          Certainly, we'd soon find many of the theological principles of
                                                          Christian fundamentalism written into our laws. Yesterday's NY Times
                                                          magazine ran an article on the right wing crusade against birth
                                                          control in the US - they're not just worrying about abortion anymore,
                                                          they'd really like to ban BIRTH CONTROL. And yes - they mean even
                                                          birth control IN MARRIAGE. (No, there wasn't a word in the whole
                                                          article about population control.)

                                                          In Europe, this is obviously not where things go, when the state
                                                          funds religion. In the US, this is what happens.

                                                          Anthroposophists have tunnel vision on this one. Their interests are
                                                          better protected in the US - in France, for instance,
                                                          anthroposophists have sometimes been persecuted. Here (although
                                                          sometimes they have to be reined in), the government is not supposed
                                                          to interfere with any religious group, no matter how weird they are.
                                                          With church/state protections removed, what will NOT happen is that
                                                          anthroposophy will suddenly become popular and well funded by the
                                                          government. You might find you'd in fact LOSE the respectability you
                                                          have so carefully garnered. Your schools would have to COMPETE with
                                                          the right wing Christian fundies for those tax dollars. A new
                                                          evangelical Christian public charter school would open on every other
                                                          street corner in some US locales.

                                                          News flash – Waldorf schools would lose this competition.

                                                          Furthermore the door would be open to persecuting you for your
                                                          beliefs. Our government *prefers* the evangelical Christians, and
                                                          agrees with the people who think you are probably satanists.

                                                          (I know, I know, some of you think "Waldorf critics" are already
                                                          persecuting you - by writing posts on mailing lists like this - but
                                                          that is of course just incredible naivete.)

                                                          I will finish this later as I have to work now.
                                                          Diana
                                                        • winters_diana
                                                          ... In that last sentence although sometimes they have to be reined in, the they referred to the government, just to clarify - not to weird religious
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , May 8, 2006
                                                            I wrote:

                                                            >Anthroposophists have tunnel vision on this one. Their interests are
                                                            >better protected in the US - in France, for instance,
                                                            >anthroposophists have sometimes been persecuted. Here (although
                                                            >sometimes they have to be reined in), the government is not supposed
                                                            >to interfere with any religious group, no matter how weird they are.


                                                            In that last sentence "although sometimes they have to be reined in,"
                                                            the "they" referred to the government, just to clarify - not to weird
                                                            religious groups. I meant that the government is sometimes inclined
                                                            to interfere in the activities of unpopular religious groups and in
                                                            these situations sometimes need to be restrained from doing so.

                                                            The wall of church/state separation is supposed to work two ways: the
                                                            government can't show preferences for a particular group (for
                                                            instance, by giving them money), and also can't (in most
                                                            circumstances) interfere with their activities, can't persecute the
                                                            ones it disagrees with. This is where I think anthroposophy is short
                                                            sighted; in a climate where their own views would be *extremely*
                                                            unpopoular with those currently in power politically, they ought to
                                                            be interested in maintaining the protections they currently enjoy -
                                                            not allowing those protections to be chipped away at just because
                                                            they might get some government grants now and then.

                                                            Diana
                                                          • Frank Smith
                                                            Many of you on this list are subscribed to Southern Cross Review. Our mailing list has somehow been infiltrated by a spammer, so you may be getting a lot of
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , May 8, 2006
                                                              Many of you on this list are subscribed to Southern
                                                              Cross Review. Our mailing list has somehow been
                                                              infiltrated by a spammer, so you may be getting a lot
                                                              of spam lately apparently from us (which it isn't).
                                                              We're working to stop it, so please have a little
                                                              patience.
                                                              Thanks,
                                                              Frank


                                                              Frank Thomas Smith
                                                              http://SouthernCrossReview.org

                                                              __________________________________________________
                                                              Do You Yahoo!?
                                                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.