For Peter
"Secularized man"?
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:28 am
Subject: "Secularized man"?
(I lost the original post, but meant to reply
to this earlier. Sorry to muck up the thread title.)
Tarjei
wrote:
What seems to be implied by expressions
like "civilized man" and "city dweller" is
something we might also call "secularized man" - the
human being adapted to a secular society.
<snip>
To a secular society, the heavens are nothing
more than what astro-physics have to tell us.
I think this is perhaps more the case in Europe
than the US. Where are all these secularists you and Bradford
fret about? Do they all live in Oslo?
The US is not a secular society, it is very
religious. If you walked up and down my block knocking on doors,
you'd be hard pressed to find you a godless atheist.
The New Age Movement, including Anthroposophy,
represents a challenge to the eternal preservation of secularism.
Oh baloney, the New Age is nothing new and
hardly a "challenge" to anything; if it were a real
challenge to something it would not be so wildly popular. Secularism
is hardly eternal, it's relatively recent and very tenuous and,
at least here, usually under attack. I do hope secularism is
preserved because there are so many different religious beliefs,
and they all fight among themselves and persecute each other
(though they all agree nonbelievers are the bottom of the food
chain).
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Secularized man"?
At 14:28 09.03.2004, Diana wrote:
(I lost the original post, but meant to
reply to this earlier. Sorry to muck up the thread title.)
Changing the title along the way is a good
thing; I do it frequently myself.
I wrote:
What seems to be implied by expressions
like "civilized man" and "city dweller" is
something we might also call "secularized man" - the
human being adapted to a secular society.
<snip>
To a secular society, the heavens are nothing
more than what astro-physics have to tell us.
You wrote:
I think this is perhaps more the case in
Europe than the US. Where are all these secularists you and Bradford
fret about? Do they all live in Oslo?
You ask this question after spending years
with PLANS? As I understand it, PLANS is originally and ideally
an organization that seeks to keep public schools - along with
the rest of the public sector financed with tax money - secular.
The US is not a secular society, it is
very religious.
American culture, and Western Europe as well,
regards religion as a private, personal concern that should be
kept separate from public life, which is secular.
If you walked up and down my block knocking
on doors, you'd be hard pressed to find you a godless atheist.
Sounds like you live in an evangelist commune
or something. (Have you really knocked on all those doors and
asked? I have no idea what my neighbors believe and don't believe.)
In Norway, most of our politicians (except those of the Christian
Party who are in power right now) are atheists or agnostics,
and half my friends are atheists and agnostics. In America, you've
had Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov and many other leading thinkers
who have established a trend for a natural science-based secular
atheist outlook. If you check out some of the usenets dedicated
to natural science, evolution, etc. you'll find that atheism
is widespread in America. But there's still a certain stigma
to it because of the fascist religious fundamentalist right wing.
Those are the people who are raging against secularism with a
vengeance matched only by the Muslim authorities in Iran.
The New Age Movement, including Anthroposophy,
represents a challenge to the eternal preservation of secularism.
Oh baloney, the New Age is nothing new
and hardly a "challenge" to anything; if it were a
real challenge to something it would not be so wildly popular.
It's a challenge because of its popularity.
Dan Dugan seems to be freaked out about the spread of New Age
alternative medicine and arts of healing, which he calls quackery
and insists that any physician associated with it should have
his or her licence revoked.
Secularism is hardly eternal, it's relatively
recent and very tenuous and, at least here, usually under attack.
There is no reason to attack secularism except
when some people endeavor to make a proselytizing religion out
of it. On the contrary, secularism is a necessary, useful, and
good element in our civilization because it enables a rich variety
of worldviews to co-exist.
I do hope secularism is preserved because
there are so many different religious beliefs, and they all fight
among themselves and persecute each other (though they all agree
nonbelievers are the bottom of the food chain).
Secularism is a necessity at the present time,
but this may change in the future as consciousness evolves and
outgrows the present faiths and conceptions. Anthroposophy is
not something to be broadcast or advertised; it's something homeless
souls are attracted to and seek out on their own initiative.
Those fearful of this trend and of the possibility of its radical
expansion in the future (of its own accord) feel the urge to
stop it by warning everybody against it. And if people are not
alarmed by them, they paint Adolf Hitler on the wall.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:09 am
Subject: Re: "Secularized man"?
I wrote:
I think this is perhaps more the case in
Europe than the US. Where are all these secularists you and Bradford
fret about? Do they all live in Oslo?
Tarjei:
You ask this question after spending years
with PLANS? As I understand it, PLANS is originally and ideally
an organization that seeks to keep public schools - along with
the rest of the public sector financed with tax money - secular.
Yes, and why do you think it's such a fight
here? Because the US is very religious. My own child is in a
religious school. (Private.) Did you think PLANS was big and
powerful? The church/state separation thing is being eroded all
the time and certainly not just by Waldorf moving into the public
sector.
American culture, and Western Europe as
well, regards religion as a private, personal concern that should
be kept separate from public life, which is secular.
I'm afraid you're very mistaken, those are
high-brow ideas that have little do with actual American culture.
There are fights about it all the time because to an awful lot
of people, religion most definitely belongs in public life.
I said:
If you walked up and down my block knocking
on doors, you'd be hard pressed to find you a godless atheist.
You said:
Sounds like you live in an evangelist commune
or something.
No, that is my point exactly, Tarjei, I live
on an ordinary street in an ordinary middle-class neighborhood.
It's probably a good cross-section of Americana.
(Have you really knocked on all those doors
and asked?
I wouldn't need to. My son just attended a
kid across the street's first communion, or whatever it's called,
which is a big hoopla with every living relative invited and
a weekend-long party. Another neighbor's husband left on a month-long
Buddhist retreat thing in Japan (not exactly clear if he's coming
back). Many kids on the block go to one of the many Catholic
schools, which ties their lives closely to the activities of
the parish. I do not need to ask to know who goes to church and
who doesn't, most people do. My son has friends from school scheduling
their Bar Mitzvahs a year in advance. Among various friends and
relations I can barely think of one who isn't on some kind of
spiritual path yada yada. A friend who was here this afternoon
hassles me continually to improve the energy flow or something
in my house with her Feng Shui recommendations (doors are in
the wrong place or something).
I have no idea what my neighbors believe
and don't believe.) In Norway, most of our politicians (except
those of the Christian Party who are in power right now) are
atheists or agnostics,
Er, well, I'm sure you've heard our president
is, uh, religiously inclined. (Horsemen of the Apocalypse come
to mind again.) This I think is really vastly different in Norway.
An atheist could not be elected US president.
and half my friends are atheists and agnostics.
In America, you've had Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov and many other
leading thinkers who have established a trend for a natural science-based
secular atheist outlook.
Considering polling my neighbors again, I
bet most of them could not tell you who Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov
are. I don't know when you were last in the US personally, Tarjei,
I'm getting the feeling it's been awhile. I suppose there were
a few godless years in the 60's but God is back, big time.
If you check out some of the usenets dedicated
to natural science, evolution, etc. you'll find that atheism
is widespread in America.
Oh, absolutely not, you are seriously
misinformed. Atheism remains a stigma. Even in educated circles
atheism is not of-the-hour. You are talking to nerds online,
Tarjei, that's who rants and raves online like we do. :) Plus
the US is just a big country, on any board there tend to be a
lot of Americans.
But there's still a certain stigma to it
because of the fascist religious fundamentalist right wing. Those
are the people who are raging against secularism with a vengeance
matched only by the Muslim authorities in Iran.
You got that right.
I said:
Oh baloney, the New Age is nothing new
and hardly a "challenge" to anything; if it were a
real challenge to something it would not be so wildly popular.
You said:
It's a challenge because of its
popularity.
Another friend of my son has a mom who is
an Episcopalian minister, who also mixes in various neopagan,
earth goddess stuff into her stuff (I don't talk religion with
her). If you want to say it's a challenge, who or what is it
challenging? It's no threat, it's very mainstream and very acceptable.
It's Hallmark greeting card stuff already. (I am not representative,
Tarjei, even my friends are sick of my anti-religion stuff. At
a meeting at my son's school recently, people were talking about
spirituality and religion and when I said I wasn't spiritual
– these days you can say you're not religious, but to say
you're not even spiritual is socially unacceptable – the
group fell silent, and looked at me like I'd said I never bathe
or something.
There is no reason to attack secularism
except when some people endeavor to make a proselytizing religion
out of it. On the contrary, secularism is a necessary, useful,
and good element in our civilization because it enables a rich
variety of worldviews to co-exist.
Well, there we agree! I personally don't think
of secularism as anything in itself (Dan Dugan may feel differently.)
It isn't a philosophy or lifestyle or something to me –
it's a civics issue, it's about keeping the peace. There are
many religions here and the point of secularism is to
keep them from warring, keep the state out of it, and ensure
religious freedom. Anthroposophists ought to support religious
freedom for their own self-interest. You're a small, virtually
unknown sect and you may someday need the protection of the state.
In the US, the way the deal works is you have an assurance of
government protection to practice your faith as you choose, but
you can't have government money, because then the government
has to start playing favorites – there are thousands of
sects who'd like some of the same money.
Secularism is a necessity at the present
time, but this may change in the future as consciousness evolves
and outgrows the present faiths and conceptions.
Blech, we'd better stop here `cus we're going
to stop agreeing! It was fun while it lasted. (See my previous
conversation with Christine, the one where she threatened to
sue me, as she is now threatening to sue Dan for referring to
the "cult of Rudolf Steiner." The "cult of Rudolf
Steiner" is also protected by the US government from persecution.
It is not a problem if Dan Dugan or anybody else thinks you are
in a cult, you can't sue somebody either for being in
a cult or for saying somebody's in a cult. In the US you
have both freedom of speech and religious freedom, and you may
join any cult you like, or argue all day about whether you are
in a cult because nobody can persecute you for being in some
kind of group some people happen to think is a cult. So sue away,
Christine, you may ultimately be working to uphold your own freedoms
in ways you don't recognize at the moment.
It is just a dream (I hope) to imagine that
someday there will be a common consciousness about religious
matters. If church/state separation is eroded, there could well
be power grabs by various groups who would like to think
their religious views are - or ought to be - common consciousness.
Hey, you could always mandate it! But it wouldn't likely be anthroposophy
that got mandated, would it? It would probably be some group
that would frighten you, Tarjei, as much as it would me. (Might
turn out to be worse than the gray mass.)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:10 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Secularized man"?
Hello Diana,
I wrote
As I understand it, PLANS is originally
and ideally an organization that seeks to keep public schools
- along with the rest of the public sector financed with tax
money - secular.
You wrote:
Yes, and why do you think it's such a fight
here? Because the US is very religious. My own child is in a
religious school. (Private.)
In that case, you seem to prefer religion
to secularism.
Did you think PLANS was big and powerful?
No.
The church/state separation thing is being
eroded all the time and certainly not just by Waldorf moving
into the public sector.
I've never had any arguments against PLANS
wanting to keep public schools secular and free from religious
or spiritual New Age influences, and free from WE too. Waldorf
schools were intended by the founders to be a private, not public,
concern. It's PLANS' smear campaign against Rudolf Steiner and
Anthroposophy I'm reacting to.
Tarjei:
American culture, and Western Europe as
well, regards religion as a private, personal concern that should
be kept separate from public life, which is secular.
Diana:
I'm afraid you're very mistaken, those
are high-brow ideas that have little do with actual American
culture. There are fights about it all the time because to an
awful lot of people, religion most definitely belongs in public
life.
It is not permitted to display the nativity
scene in public buildings at Christmas time.
Diana:
If you walked up and down my block knocking
on doors, you'd be hard pressed to find you a godless atheist.
Tarjei:
Sounds like you live in an evangelist commune
or something.
Diana:
No, that is my point exactly, Tarjei, I
live on an ordinary street in an ordinary middle-class neighborhood.
It's probably a good cross-section of Americana.
That's disputable. I didn't experience California,
Nevada, and Arizona that way, but when I lived in Pasadena, Texas,
there were gossipy fundamentalist neighbors all over the block
who started talking about one person living there (me) who didn't
believe the way they did.
Tarjei:
(Have you really knocked on all those doors
and asked?
Diana:
I wouldn't need to. My son just attended
a kid across the street's first communion, or whatever it's called,
which is a big hoopla with every living relative invited and
a weekend-long party. Another neighbor's husband left on a month-long
Buddhist retreat thing in Japan (not exactly clear if he's coming
back). Many kids on the block go to one of the many Catholic
schools, which ties their lives closely to the activities of
the parish. I do not need to ask to know who goes to church and
who doesn't, most people do.
It seems like you're talking about a rich
variety of faiths and traditions here. Some Buddhists are also
atheists btw.
My son has friends from school scheduling
their Bar Mitzvahs a year in advance. Among various friends and
relations I can barely think of one who isn't on some kind of
spiritual path yada yada.
What's "yada yada"? A spiritual
path?
A friend who was here this afternoon hassles
me continually to improve the energy flow or something in my
house with her Feng Shui recommendations (doors are in the wrong
place or something).
Did you invite your friend, or did the person
just march into your home? I don't let anybody hassle me, and
hasslers don't get inside my home.
Er, well, I'm sure you've heard our president
is, uh, religiously inclined. (Horsemen of the Apocalypse come
to mind again.) This I think is really vastly different in Norway.
An atheist could not be elected US president.
No, it looks like a WASP party, although JFK
was a Catholic (and so was Walter Mondale's running mate Geraldine
Ferrari) and some have been Freemasons. But people do seem to
want the false Christ, the Warrier Jesus in a tank or a bomber.
Considering polling my neighbors again,
I bet most of them could not tell you who Carl Sagan or Isaac
Asimov are.
Anyone with an interest in science should
know who they were. But perhaps they know who some of these people
are:
http://www.celebatheists.com/
I don't know when you were last in the
US personally, Tarjei, I'm getting the feeling it's been awhile.
I suppose there were a few godless years in the 60's but God
is back, big time.
I don't think the Religious Right has succeeded
in whipping the fear of God into anybody, just the fear of government
and terrorists. Those alerts they've been using - yellow, orange,
red or whatever - is a powerful tool to control people through
fear in terms of getting away with all kinds of shit. The fear
of being labelled unpatriotic rings bells from the McCarthy years
of the early fifties. Reminds me of Arthur Miller's superb play
about McCarthyism, "The Crucible," where he links those
hearings to the witch hunt in Salem in the late 17th century.
Atheism remains a stigma. Even in educated
circles atheism is not of-the-hour. You are talking to nerds
online, Tarjei, that's who rants and raves online like we do.
:) Plus the US is just a big country, on any board there tend
to be a lot of Americans.
Secularism is the issue here; nobody needs
to be an atheist to be part of the secular culture. Hollywood
and the entertainment industry is part of it. NASA is part of
it, regardless of how much they may be attending churches and
praying. This culture does have some ideologues - an ideology
that is best depicted through various documentaries on science
and research.
At a meeting at my son's school recently,
people were talking about spirituality and religion and when
I said I wasn't spiritual – these days you can say you're
not religious, but to say you're not even spiritual is socially
unacceptable – the group fell silent, and looked at me like
I'd said I never bathe or something.
Did your son express a strong wish to attend
that school? If so, I applaud your respecting and accommodating
him.
Tarjei:
Secularism is a necessity at the present
time, but this may change in the future as consciousness evolves
and outgrows the present faiths and conceptions.
Diana:
Blech, we'd better stop here `cus we're
going to stop agreeing!
I understand that you do not want human consciousness
to evolve beyond its present status quo - especially if it entails
cognition of the spiritual.
It is just a dream (I hope) to imagine
that someday there will be a common consciousness about religious
matters.
There was a common consciousness about those
things in the distant past, and there will be one in the distant
future, although in a self-conscious mode, not an atavistic,
involuntary one. Is it because of your strong hopes that these
things aren't true that you spend so much time and energy fighting
against Anthroposophy?
If church/state separation is eroded, there
could well be power grabs by various groups who would like to
think their religious views are - or ought to be - common
consciousness. Hey, you could always mandate it! But it wouldn't
likely be anthroposophy that got mandated, would it? It would
probably be some group that would frighten you, Tarjei, as much
as it would me. (Might turn out to be worse than the gray mass.)
The evolution of consciousness and the history
of politics are two different things in the sense that you learn
very little about the evolution of consciousness by reading political
history alone. It's not a question of what gets mandated or not,
but of what kind of common understanding people share in their
everyday lives. That's something that cannot be legislated by
anyone.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy