What is Anthroposophical Influence?
In this long thread, we
meet the orthodox Protestant Christian theologian John Morehead,
who belongs to an organization that seeks to warn people against
the evils of anthroposophy.
We are also getting some
RS-quote competition with Dan Dugan, and some exchanges with
Michael Kopp, where we inquire about his "bitter venom"
against anthroposophy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first post in this thread refers
to two other posts - one from Kathy
Sutphen, and one from Michael
Kopp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 06:44:57 -0400
Kathy Sutphen asks:
Do I recall correctly that you are a Waldorf
teacher? And, if so, why don't you simply describe to me how
gardening in a Waldorf school curriculum is bereft of Anthroposophical
influence. I am interested in a discussion on this subject.
I am a waldorf teacher--currently teaching
at the third-grade level.
And Michael Kopp relates:
This does not mean that they didn't DO
gardening; they did, quite a lot of it.
But it was never explained to them in either orthodox scientific
terms or folk terms or Anthroposphical terms or biodynamic principles.
However, they did certain things only at certain times; they
did most things in ways which seemed unusual to them; and they
used "Preparation 500" and other things that are well-known
as biodynamic agents.
<snip>
So, in fact, my children were participating
in relious rites without my permission, engaging in activities
not just informed by, but controlled by, Anthroposophy, in direct
contradiction of the school's promise to me that Anthroposphy
was not in the curriculum or classroom.
Would you mind explaining to me what you consider
"religious" in this context?
Does something that is "controlled"
or directed by anthroposophy contradict a school's statement
that anthroposophy is not taught?
In another recent post, Kathy comments:
Jeez Flannery. What do you mean I have
"now admitted . . ." I said all along that I had no
experience with it, only my suspicions. Why don't you tell me
why my suspicions are *not* so. As far as I can surmise at this
point in time, every single exercise I engaged in during my Public
School Waldorf Teachers Training was based on Anthroposophical
religious beliefs . . . all of this without my informed consent.
I would ask you the same question I just asked
Michael: how do you define "religious" in this context?
Why don't you take an example of a bit
of standard Waldorf School curriculum and tell us why and how
it is not based on an Anthroposophical belief? So far you are
all talk and no substance.
In trying to pin down Michael and Kathy over
the issue of anthroposophy and the curriculum of a waldorf school,
a number of things are becoming painfully clear to me.
Apparently, it is too easy to confuse the
issue of anthroposophical content in the lessons (clearly a no-no,
but something that has happened from time to time) with the issue
of anthroposophy serving as a basis for curriculum choices and
teaching methods.
I read "Soul Economy in Waldorf Education"
over the last few days. Here's what Steiner had to say in a few
places about these same issues:
"You must realize
that the Waldorf School or any other school which might spring
from the anthroposophical movement, would never wish to teach
its pupils Anthroposophy in the form in which it exists today.
This I should consider the very worst thing one could do. For
Anthroposophy in its present form is a subject for grownups and,
as one can see from the color of their hair, often for quite
mature adults! Consequently it is presented through its literature
or by word of mouth in a form appropriate only to the adult.
I should consider any passing on to pupils of content taken from
my "Theosophy" or from my book "Knowledge of the
Higher Worlds and Its Attainment" as the very worst misuse
possible. Such a thing simply must not happen. For if we were
to teach content which is totally unsuitable for school-agers,
we should -- forgive this somewhat trivial expression used in
the German language -- we should make the young folk want "to
jump out of their skin." Naturally, in class lessons they
would have to submit themselves to what the teacher brought,
but inwardly they nevertheless would experience such an urge.
Anthroposophy itself is not to be taught in a Waldorf School.
What matters is that its teaching should not become mere theoretical
knowledge, or a world outlook based on certain ideas, but it
should become a way of life, involving the entire human being.
If then a teacher who is an anthroposophist enters school, he
must have so worked upon himself that he has become a many-sided
and skillful person, someone who has developed the art of education.
And it is this latter achievement which is important, but never
a wish to bring anthroposophical content to pupils." (pages 127-128).
"As mentioned before,
it is not at all our aim to teach an ideology in a Waldorf School,
though such a thought might easily occur to people upon hearing
that the anthroposophists have founded a new school. Our aim
is to carry insights gained through knowledge of Anthroposophy
right into actual teaching." (pages
129-130)
Kathy, anthroposophy stands behind every educational
practice in a waldorf school. Anthroposophy is a world-view that
has everything to say about the way a teacher views a child,
and thus how a child learns and what material is most appropriate
at a given age, and how it should be presented.
Why don't you simply describe to me how
gardening in a Waldorf school curriculum is bereft of Anthroposophical
influence?
Nothing taught in a waldorf school is bereft
of anthroposophical influence, but everything properly taught
in a waldorf school is bereft of anthroposophical content.
Now, if Michael Kopp believes this constitutes
mind control, that's his right. Here's another quote from SEWE:
"The teacher is called
upon to carry into his lessons the utmost respect for soul and
spirit. Without it, he will succeed as little as if he were lacking
an even fundamental artistic and scientific background. Therefore
the first prerequisite of a Waldorf teacher is to have reverence
for the soul and spiritual potential which each child brings
with it into the world. When confronted with the child, the teacher
must be imbued with the awareness that he is dealing with an
innately free human being. With this attitude he will be able
to work out educational principles and methods which will safeguard
the child's inborn freedom so that in later life, when a pupil
looks back upon his school days, he will not find any infringement
upon his personal freedom, not even in the aftereffects of his
education." (page 206)
I happen to believe that every human being
is a holy creation of God, and this quality is least adulterated
in childhood. The definition of "religious" that I
would recognize in waldorf teachers and waldorf schools would
be "scrupulously faithful or conscientious". "Devotion"
is an important concept in a waldorf school, indicating as it
does a "fervent spirit, usually genuine and often independent
of outward observances". [relying here on the Unabridged
Version of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language]
When "religious" is used as a general
term (applying to whatever pertains to faith or worship), I find
it inapplicable to waldorf education.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:24:31
At 06:44 AM 4/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
Does something that is "controlled"
or directed by anthroposophy contradict a school's statement
that anthroposophy is not taught?
What about something that has anthroposophy
as its foundation, and a pedagogy which flows direct and inseparably
from "esoteric Christianity"? Is this a violation of
the Establishment Clause even though it is promoted as a secular
methodology? Shades of Malnak v. Yogi in New Jersey perhaps?
Apparently, it is too easy to confuse the
issue of anthroposophical content in the lessons (clearly a no-no,
but something that has happened from time to time) with the issue
of anthroposophy serving as a basis for curriculum choices and
teaching methods.
The anthroposophical basis for Waldorf education
leads directly to anthroposophical content and methodology. It
is good to see that this is "clearly a no-no," but
it must also be recognized that this is illegal.
When "religious" is used as a
general term (applying to whatever pertains to faith or worship),
I find it inapplicable to waldorf education.
But the question is not simply how if anthroposophy/waldorf
education seem religious to a Waldorf teacher. Religious studies
scholars and scholarly reference works on religion commonly classify
anthroposophy as a religion and an influential one on today's
"new spirituality" of the New Age movement (along with
groups such as Rosicrucianism, etc.). In addition, even if this
argument should fail, the courts are taking accepting a broader
definition of religion in order to allow for the growth and influence
of the new spirituality along with more traditional theistic
faiths. As a case in point, the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental
Meditation was offered in the New Jersey public school system
as a secular relaxation technique. When a lawsuit was brought
before the New Jersey federal court, in spite of the fact that
TM said it was not religious, and that several clergy and TM
practitioners said they saw nothing religious in the practice,
the courts ruled that TM in the public schools advanced the cause
of a Hindu sect in violation of the Establishment Clause. (See
my article, "Reading, Writing...and 'Spiritual Science?:'
The Religious Pedagogy of Waldorf Education," in the next
issue of TruthQuest Journal for an elaboration on these points.)
The Waldorf case in Sacramento, CA is one
to watch....
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: redon
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 01:28:28 -0500
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
At 06:44 AM 4/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
Does something that is "controlled"
or directed by anthroposophy contradict a school's statement
that anthroposophy is not taught?
What about something that has anthroposophy
as its foundation, and a pedagogy which flows direct and inseparably
from "esoteric Christianity"? Is this a violation of
the Establishment Clause even though it is promoted as a secular
methodology? Shades of Malnak v. Yogi in New Jersey perhaps?
Apparently, it is too easy to confuse the
issue of anthroposophical content in the lessons (clearly a no-no,
but something that has happened from time to time) with the issue
of anthroposophy serving as a basis for curriculum choices and
teaching methods.
The anthroposophical basis for Waldorf
education leads directly to anthroposophical content and methodology.
It is good to see that this is "clearly a no-no," but
it must also be recognized that this is illegal.
When "religious" is used as a
general term (applying to whatever pertains to faith or worship),
I find it inapplicable to waldorf education.
But the question is not simply how if anthroposophy/waldorf
education seem religious to a Waldorf teacher. Religious studies
scholars and scholarly reference works on religion commonly classify
anthroposophy as a religion and an influential one on today's
"new spirituality" of the New Age movement (along with
groups such as Rosicrucianism, etc.). In addition, even if this
argument should fail, the courts are taking accepting a broader
definition of religion in order to allow for the growth and influence
of the new spirituality along with more traditional theistic
faiths. As a case in point, the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental
Meditation was offered in the New Jersey public school system
as a secular relaxation technique. When a lawsuit was brought
before the New Jersey federal court, in spite of the fact that
TM said it was not religious, and that several clergy and TM
practitioners said they saw nothing religious in the practice,
the courts ruled that TM in the public schools advanced the cause
of a Hindu sect in violation of the Establishment Clause. (See
my article, "Reading, Writing...and 'Spiritual Science?:'
The Religious Pedagogy of Waldorf Education," in the next
issue of TruthQuest Journal for an elaboration on these points.)
The Waldorf case in Sacramento, CA is one to watch....
I suspect the case in Sacramento will take
into consideration the case that was ruled by the Wisconsin Supreme
Court which cited other state cases concerning different private
and religious school vouchers. However, if the plaintiffs appealed
to the US Supreme Court their reply will be the same.
Even if the plaintiffs make some strange case
that Waldorf Public Schools are somehow religious, and I do not
believe they are, my feeling is that the court will rule as all
the other courts have.
Which basically is: "...it has a secular
purpose, it does not have the primary effect of advancing religion,
and it does not lead to an extensive entanglement between the
state and sectarian schools."
The First Amendment states: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The important issue here is: "prohibiting
the free exercise thereof"
I agree with many political leader concerning
vouchers:
"People said, 'How could you do that?
It will violate separation of church and state.' Well, I don't
believe our founders meant to separate religion from our public
life. What they meant is that the state shouldn't impose any
particular religion on the people."
"... five years from now, every major
city in the country will have religious school vouchers, and
"10 years from now it won't even be controversial."
If you think about it... We give federal grant
money to college students who attend private, public, and religious
schools, why not open the doors and have some healthy competition
and allow parents to have a real choice?
I even know of a Public University that offers
4 years of TM, coupled with some other cultural studies, students
can apply this as a minor.
I have even seen religious programing not
to mention New Age material weekly on both PBS and NPR. They
receive large amounts of money form the federal government, what
makes the elementary and high schools, both private and religious,
any different when it comes to federal and state funding?
my .02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 06:43:08 -0400
John Morehead follows up on my question:
At 06:44 AM 4/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
Does something that is "controlled"
or directed by anthroposophy contradict a school's statement
that anthroposophy is not taught?
What about something that has anthroposophy
as its foundation, and a pedagogy which flows direct and inseparably
from "esoteric Christianity"?
Certainly, "esoteric Christianity"
is part of anthroposophy. As much as anthroposophy serves as
a basis for curriculum choices and teaching methods, esoteric
Christianity is part of that -- but esoteric Christianity is
not taught in the classroom, any more than anthroposophy is taught
in the classroom.
Is this a violation of the Establishment
Clause even though it is promoted as a secular methodology? Shades
of Malnak v. Yogi in New Jersey perhaps?
If the courts determine that it is such a
violation, so be it. I don't support waldorf public schools in
their practice, and would welcome this conclusion.
Apparently, it is too easy to confuse the
issue of anthroposophical content in the lessons (clearly a no-no,
but something that has happened from time to time) with the issue
of anthroposophy serving as a basis for curriculum choices and
teaching methods.
The anthroposophical basis for Waldorf
education leads directly to anthroposophical content and methodology.
It is good to see that this is "clearly a no-no," but
it must also be recognized that this is illegal.
The anthroposophical basis for waldorf education
leads directly to anthroposophical methodology. If a teacher
oversteps his or her bounds, it also leads directly to anthroposophical
content in lessons.
I doubt that you are qualified to judge the
issue of its legality in public education.
<snip>
The Waldorf case in Sacramento, CA is one
to watch....
I'm sure it is. What is the TruthQuest Institute?
Is the TruthQuest Institute a dispassionate observer, or do you
have some kind of a stake in the outcome? Have you contributed
to the PLANS legal fund, personally or as an institution?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 16:10:36
At 06:43 AM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
Certainly, "esoteric Christianity"
is part of anthroposophy. As much as anthroposophy serves as
a basis for curriculum choices and teaching methods, esoteric
Christianity is part of that--but esoteric Christianity is not
taught in the classroom, any more than anthroposophy is taught
in the classroom.
Critics argue that not only does anthroposophy
serve as the foundation of Waldorf education, which leads to
the religious methodology, but that anthroposphy *is* implicit
in the classroom curricula as well. This will be brought out
in the California courts, examples of which have been given at
Mr. Dugan's website.
If the courts determine that it is such
a violation, so be it. I don't support waldorf public schools
in their practice, and would welcome this conclusion.
Time will tell.
The anthroposophical basis for waldorf
education leads directly to anthroposophical methodology. If
a teacher oversteps his or her bounds, it also leads directly
to anthroposophical content in lessons.
I doubt that you are qualified to judge the issue of its legality
in public education.
Thanks for the vote of confidence! I have
read the text of the lawsuit of Malnak v. Yogi, and it does seem
as if there is a parallel in the Waldorf case. Perhaps you are
not qualified to judge this either, which would make your denial
here mere opinion as well.
In any event, I am qualified in religious
studies, specializing in new religious movements and the "new
spirituality" of the New Age movement. Hence my conclusion
that anthroposophy is religious, that it serves as the basis
for Waldorf education, and that this is a violation of the Establishment
Clause. I will let me pending article on this issue stand on
its own merit, as well as cumulative weight of the evidence in
the prosecution's case against Waldorf in Sacramento.
What is the TruthQuest Institute? Is the
TruthQuest Institute a dispassionate observer, or do you have
some kind of a stake in the outcome? Have you contributed to
the PLANS legal fund, personally or as an institution?
I don't think anyone is a "dispassionate
observer." We all have our presuppositions, biases, etc.
The key is to acknowledge one's presuppositions and to be as
objective as possible in analysis. TruthQuest is a nonprofit
evangelical educational organization specializing in new religious
movements. We have no financial stake in the outcome. We have
not contributed to the PLANS legal fund, as an institution, or
personally. Neither have we received any funds from PLANS. At
any rate, even if this were not the case, it would not necessarily
skew the conclusions we have reached on Waldorf education. To
raise such a question smacks of an ad hominem designed to skirt
criticism.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:31:58 -0400
I doubt that you are qualified to judge
the issue of its legality in public education.
Thanks for the vote of confidence! I have
read the text of the lawsuit of Malnak v. Yogi, and it does seem
as if there is a parallel in the Waldorf case. Perhaps you are
not qualified to judge this either, which would make your denial
here mere opinion as well.
I do have a law degree, which leaves me just
enough in the know to recognize it's better left to specialists.
What is the TruthQuest Institute? Is the
TruthQuest Institute a dispassionate observer, or do you have
some kind of a stake in the outcome? Have you contributed to
the PLANS legal fund, personally or as an institution?
I don't think anyone is a "dispassionate
observer." We all have our presuppositions, biases, etc.
The key is to acknowledge one's presuppositions and to be as
objective as possible in analysis. TruthQuest is a nonprofit
evangelical educational organization specializing in new religious
movements. We have no financial stake in the outcome. We have
not contributed to the PLANS legal fund, as an institution, or
personally. Neither have we received any funds from PLANS. At
any rate, even if this were not the case, it would not necessarily
skew the conclusions we have reached on Waldorf education. To
raise such a question smacks of an ad hominem designed to skirt
criticism.
Or maybe it just smacks of a hunger for information
that was not available in your first post.
But it still isn't clear to me: what's an
"evangelical educational organization"? Are you affiliated
with a church?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 18:28:28
At 09:31 PM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
I do have a law degree, which leaves me
just enough in the know to recognize it's better left to specialists.
Yes, and we will see what the legal specialists
say in federal court. I have rendered my opinion in my area of
expertise, religious studies.
I don't think anyone is a "dispassionate
observer." We all have our presuppositions, biases, etc.
The key is to acknowledge one's presuppositions and to be as
objective as possible in analysis. TruthQuest is a nonprofit
evangelical educational organization specializing in new religious
movements. We have no financial stake in the outcome. We have
not contributed to the PLANS legal fund, as an institution, or
personally. Neither have we received any funds from PLANS. At
any rate, even if this were not the case, it would not necessarily
skew the conclusions we have reached on Waldorf education. To
raise such a question smacks of an ad hominem designed to skirt
criticism.
Or maybe it just smacks of a hunger for
information that was not available in your first post.
Perhaps, but this is not how it came across.
I would be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.
But it still isn't clear to me: what's
an "evangelical educational organization"? Are you
affiliated with a church?
Did you check the website at the URL below
my name? There you can read my brief bio and organizational background
info. "Evangelical" means that our organization studies
new religious movements (NRMs) from a theological perspective,
specifically conservative, orthodox, Protestant Christianity.
"Education" means that we conduct research and produce
a variety seminars and other resources to educate churches, the
public, the media and others, about NRMs. TQI is not affiliated
with any specific Christian church or denomination, but is transdenominational.
For the record, I am the executive vice president
of TruthQuest Institute, a licensed minister in the Southern
Baptist Convention. I have had training in NRMs through the SBC's
Interfaith Witness program. I have been active in this field
for over 13 years, serve as a member of the board of directors
for Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (www.emnr.org) and
have provided expertise and analysis on NRMs to major media outlets
internationally.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 18:31:44
At 09:45 PM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
In any event, I am qualified in religious
studies, specializing in new religious movements and the "new
spirituality" of the New Age movement.
What are your specific qualifications?
See my last response to you, and the websites
of TQI and EMNR for further information. You might also visit
Nurel's website at the University of Calgary for further information
where I am included in a list of experts on NRMs coming from
an evangelical Christian perspective.
I don't think anyone is a "dispassionate
observer." We all have our presuppositions, biases, etc.
The key is to acknowledge one's presuppositions and to be as
objective as possible in analysis.
So what are your personal presuppositions?
Waldorf education is religious by nature and
should not be supported by public tax dollors or found in the
public school setting. Private schools, fine. Public, no. This
is just as true with Christian schools, and it should be so with
Waldorf.
What are the presuppositions of the TruthQuest
Institute?
See the website for information on the background
and perspective of TQI.
What are your presuppositions and qualifications
to discuss and advocate Waldorf?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:45:04 -0400
In any event, I am qualified in religious
studies, specializing in new religious movements and the "new
spirituality" of the New Age movement.
What are your specific qualifications?
I don't think anyone is a "dispassionate
observer." We all have our presuppositions, biases, etc.
The key is to acknowledge one's presuppositions and to be as
objective as possible in analysis.
So what are your personal presuppositions?
What are the presuppositions of the TruthQuest
Institute?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:04:52 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
I don't think anyone is a "dispassionate
observer." We all have our presuppositions, biases, etc.
The key is to acknowledge one's presuppositions and to be as
objective as possible in analysis. TruthQuest is a nonprofit
evangelical educational organization specializing in new religious
movements. We have no financial stake in the outcome. We have
not contributed to the PLANS legal fund, as an institution, or
personally. Neither have we received any funds from PLANS. At
any rate, even if this were not the case, it would not necessarily
skew the conclusions we have reached on Waldorf education. To
raise such a question smacks of an ad hominem designed to skirt
criticism.
This is absolutely fascinating. You're an
evangelical organization specializing in new religious movements.
Christian evengelicals are embracing godless, secular humanists
who believe that Jesus was a fool if he existed at all. They
are joining forces with those who are headed straight for Hell
in their unbelief and their denial of Christ, in order to focus
on warfare against the renewal of the Christ-idea. This is good.
As evangelicals, I take it for granted that
you are Protestants, and that you attack the Catholics not only
for their Mary-cult, but for their belief in the purgatory, which
they have in common with anthroposophists, Muslims, and Buddhists.
You believe that when a person dies, he or she goes straight
to Heaven or to Hell, or sleeps in the grave until Judgement
Day, to be sent straight to Heaven or to Hell.
I am wondering if in your theology there is
room for an exception to the rules governing redemption and salvation
what the secular humanists are concerned. I understand that the
best way you can serve God is to warn people against New Age,
new religions, and the renewal of old religions, in order to
preserve these moldy forms of worship and belief in their old
brittle vessels for eternity. And the secular humanists are truly
serving God in this respect, right? So would Jesus say on the
last day, "Hey, you're a secular humanist who despised me
and scorned me, and I should send you downstairs. But you did
a good job beating up on those evil anthropops, so here's your
ticket to watch them fry!" - ?
You must have decided that anthropops, in
spite of their longing for and interest in Christ, will be the
first to fry in Hell, and that the secular humanists belong to
the redeemed and the blissful as long as they recognize that
New Age is evil. And when you're fighting for the separation
of church and state to keep Christ away from the school children,
I understand that's what Jesus and Uncle Sam want. By Jesus I
mean, of course, your Jesus, whose full name is Pentagon's UFO-Jesus,
which is meant by all those "Uncle Sam and the Lord"
bumber stickers. Let's face it, the Bible and the flag go hand
in hand in the court room, and at executions. Pentagon-Jesus
gives the senators and presidents victory in war when they prey
hard enough. (Separation of church and state my ass.) Pentagon-Jesus
loves bombs and misslies, electric chairs, and lethal injections.
He is an astronaut, and NASA is out there looking for him to
give Pentagon a hand. (Of course he is an astronaut; he promised
to return in the same fashion he left - in a space ship.)
Anyway, politics makes strange bedfellows.
Evangelicals and humanists, Uncle Sam and the Lord. An absolutely
fantastic circus.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:19:42 -0400
John Morehead returns the favor, and asks:
What are your presuppositions and qualifications
to discuss and advocate Waldorf?
Good question. I began by looking up "presupposition".
"To suppose or presume beforehand, take
for granted in advance."
"To imply or require as an antecedent
condition."
At first glance, I found waldorf compelling
because I saw the pedagogy as an answer to aspects of public
school education which I had experienced as narrow. I was the
primary caregiver for my three children at that point, and was
very interested in any viable alternative.
Homeschooling was initially appealing, but
it became apparent that my oldest daughter desperately needed
a wider social sphere, right about the time she was ready for
first grade.
*Anthroposophy* (please distinguish from waldorf,
here) was fascinating. The child model was playing out before
my eyes at home, and I saw Steiner's views as more germane than
those of Spock, Brazelton, Leech, et al. It represented a coherent
(to my view) body of knowledge that I had seen nowhere else outside
of law school.
The spiritual element in all this was low-key,
but powerful on a personal level. I was a "forced-march"
Catholic as a child, and saw repressive elements in that theology
which still disturb me (as my wife takes my daughters off to
First Holy Communion classes). I left the active practice of
Catholicism very early in adolescence. Until I encountered waldorf
and anthroposophy in my mid-thirties, I would not have described
myself as any kind of a spiritual seeker or pilgrim. No Young
Life, no Krishna Consciousness, no campus Christian athletic
organizations, no gothic impulses in music. I had pretty much
retreated into a comfortable atheism.
Now, all these presuppositions were extant
only for a very short time after I encountered waldorf around
1992. I followed up on them immediately, and found out all I
could about waldorf schools and anthroposophy in the intervening
days and years. What I've found since the early part of this
decade just builds out of the interest generated by those presuppositions.
Qualifications?
I hold a B.A. in Natural Sciences and Mathematics--which
represents four years of concentration in mathematics, chemistry,
and other natural sciences at Washington and Lee University in
Virginia. It is and was a good school (albeit very elitist),
with a strong pre-med, pre-law, and business concentration. I
think it gives me enough of a background in science and math
to teach a junior-high component in a waldorf school and critique
it.
The J.D. I mentioned in an earlier post is
from the University of Baltimore. I never ended up practicing
law, so it's useful as the near equivalent of a graduate degree
in English. Like the B.A., I expect to rely on it a lot when
I get to higher-level English work in the middle school. Law
school also developed capacities in logic and argument, which
come in handy at times.
I enlisted early in the '80s, and spent four
years in the Marine infantry as a machine-gunner. I learned a
lot there about group dynamics, responsibility, and discipline.
That time also gave me some personal experience with issues of
repression, mind control, groupthink, and cult behavior. Somewhere
around here I rediscovered that there are things worth fighting
for.
I was then a stay-at-home parent for seven
years, with primary responsibility for my three daughters from
birth on. I learned how to nurture children and what that means
for them, picked up a lot of on-the-job training in household
management, and experienced early childhood again from the perspective
of a father. Discovered waldorf education at some point here,
and spent a couple of years doing legal and insurance work on
the board of a young waldorf school in southern California.
Completed two years of waldorf teacher training
at Sunbridge College in New York. Currently trying to complete
a M.S.Ed in Waldorf Education from the same institution.
Employed full-time as a waldorf teacher since
'96, with primary responsibility for a class of youngsters that
has varied in number from 29 to 34.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:36:50 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[Robert Flannery]I do have a law degree,
which leaves me just enough in the know to recognize it's better
left to specialists.
Yes, and we will see what the legal specialists
say in federal court. I have rendered my opinion in my area of
expertise, religious studies.
I hear an echo of a discussion I had on this
list with Steve Premo, sometime Waldorf Critic, and sometime
Waldorf Critic Critic. Both he and I are lawyers, and both he
and I agreed that the issue of whether or not anthroposophy is
a religion is one which the judge will decide, mostly based on
the facts, and not because some "specialist" offers
one conclusion or another.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:06:19
At 07:04 AM 4/6/99 +0200, you wrote:
This is absolutely fascinating. You're
an evangelical organization specializing in new religious movements.
Yes. There are many such organizations which
research from a theological position.
Christian evangelicals are embracing godless,
secular humanists who believe that Jesus was a fool if he existed
at all. They are joining forces with those who are headed straight
for Hell in their unbelief and their denial of Christ, in order
to focus on warfare against the renewal of the Christ-idea. This
is good.
It sounds as if you are mistakenly equating
Steiner's "esoteric Christianity," an occultic, unbiblical
and unhistorical counterfeit series of teachings, with more in
common with Gnosticism, long regarded by orthodoxy as heretical,
than with historic orthodox Christianity. There is no contradiction
between holding to orthodox Christianity and working with secularists
to oppose a religious-based education in public schools in violation
of the Establishment Clause.
As evangelicals, I take it for granted
that you are Protestants, and that you attack the Catholics not
only for their Mary-cult, but for their belief in the purgatory,
which they have in common with anthroposophists, Muslims, and
Buddhists. You believe that when a person dies, he or she goes
straight to Heaven or to Hell, or sleeps in the grave until Judgement
Day, to be sent straight to Heaven or to Hell.
I am wondering if in your theology there is room for an exception
to the rules governing redemption and salvation what the secular
humanists are concerned. I understand that the best way you can
serve God is to warn people against New Age, new religions, and
the renewal of old religions, in order to preserve these moldy
forms of worship and belief in their old brittle vessels for
eternity. And the secular humanists are truly serving God in
this respect, right? So would Jesus say on the last day, "Hey,
you're a secular humanist who despised me and scorned me, and
I should send you downstairs. But you did a good job beating
up on those evil anthropops, so here's your ticket to watch them
fry!" - ?
This is a ranting ad hominem which does not
address the issues or the purpose of this list. Please try to
stay on track and offer cogent arguments in support of any positions
you may be advocating.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:08:35
At 07:19 AM 4/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
John Morehead returns the favor, and asks:
What are your presuppositions and qualifications
to discuss and advocate Waldorf?
Good question.
Mr. Flannery,
Thank you for the response and the exchange.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:12:05
At 09:36 AM 4/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[Robert Flannery]I do have a law degree,
which leaves me just enough in the know to recognize it's better
left to specialists.
Yes, and we will see what the legal specialists
say in federal court. I have rendered my opinion in my area of
expertise, religious studies.
I hear an echo of a discussion I had on
this list with Steve Premo, sometime Waldorf Critic, and sometime
Waldorf Critic Critic. Both he and I are lawyers, and both he
and I agreed that the issue of whether or not anthroposophy is
a religion is one which the judge will decide, mostly based on
the facts, and not because some "specialist" offers
one conclusion or another.
Bob
Agreed. You might be interested in my article
which deals with this matter from a religious studies perspective.
It will be available in our upcoming TruthQuest Journal (send
a snail mail address for a free subscription), on our website,
and on PLANS site as well.
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Jones
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
--- "Tolz, Robert" wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[Robert Flannery]I do have a law degree,
which leaves me just enough in the know to recognize it's better
left to specialists.
Yes, and we will see what the legal specialists
say in federal court. I have rendered my opinion in my area of
expertise, religious studies.
I hear an echo of a discussion I had on
this list with Steve Premo, sometime Waldorf Critic, and sometime
Waldorf Critic Critic. Both he and I are lawyers, and both he
and I agreed that the issue of whether or not anthroposophy is
a religion is one which the judge will decide, mostly based on
the facts, and not because some "specialist" offers
one conclusion or another.
Bob
It is raining, which is good. My oats are
in, and so I have a day off.
I am not a lawyer, but I have had experience
with the civil law in my life.
It is my understanding that a judge obtains
his facts from specialists & experts. These people with knowledge
in selected areas are deposed, under oath, in the presence of
the lawyers from both sides. This is called discovery. There
is some challange allowed in the deposition procedure of the
witness by the opposing lawyer, as well as counsel allowed from
the witnesses' lawyer. At the actual trial, the contents of the
depositions are presented into evidence and cross-examination
is allowed, as is rebuttal.Other witnesses, some of them designated
"expert" will be allowed to testify & be cross-examined
at the trial. It is the job of the lawyers from each side to
present the facts discovered via deposition, testimony and entered
from other credible sources, public and private, in a manner
beneficial to their client's case and to cast doubt and aspersion
on the facts beneficial to the case of the opponent. This is
why our system is called adversarial.
To the best of my knowledge, judges do not
gather their own facts nor render a personal opinion based on
what they think or feel. Judges must weigh the evidence, it's
credibility and the credibility of the presenters of that evidence
and render a verdict based on the above and the precedent of
case law, as well as the canon of law and the statutes.
In the American civil law, there is a right
of appeal by whichever side loses in the first round. It is the
job of the attorneys for both sides to keep records of every
aspect of the initial depositions and presentations, as well
as trial procedure to use in the appeal process. Appeals go to
a higher level of the Judiciary and are not granted automatically.
It is normally the advice of counsel for both
sides that the plaintiff and defendants refrain from discussing
the details of a case while the litigation is in process.
Mr. Tolz appears to be on a fishing expedition,
on one hand, and to be engaged in a psych-out, on the other.
Mr Flannery, who has a law degree, but has
never practiced law, appears to be correct: this is best left
to the specialists. It would appear that Mr Morehead is such
a specialist. Why is his Baptist affiliation not granted the
same credibility and validity as the Anthroposophical affiliations
of AWSNA or RSC?
Whether either group's theological beliefs
agree with the other's is immaterial: Mr. Morehead can give a
detailed, factual analysis of Anthroposophical beliefs, compare
and contrast them with the beliefs of a multitude of other denominations
or totally separate religions, and present an informed opinion
on what constitutes a religion.
If the majority of credible evidence shows
Anthroposophy to be a religion, then a pedagogy based upon it
may or may not be in violation of the Establishment Clause of
the Constitution Of the United States. The trickiest judgement
call here, IMO, will be whether that basis alone is grounds for
excluding Waldorf pedagogy from public classrooms. It will come
down to the question of the influence of Anthroposophy upon the
content and the manner of presentation of the curriculum.
However, the educational content of the curriculum
is also being examined. The factual content of education, at
least in Wisconsin, must meet a minimum standard set by the State.
This is an issue locally. It is the District's responsibility
to assure that all students, public, private, and homeschooled,
meet a minimum standard. The electorate has the right to demand
an educated populace. Children have the right to an education
that allows them to transfer to public school at any time or
level, and to be given the skills that allows them to compete
in the workplace. Political ideology is not an issue in that
matter. Neither is anecdotal evidence of single student's experiences
that is not controlled for socioeconomic status or for the admissions
practices of many private and public colleges and Universities,
where diversity can trump coursework competence. Some schools
allow the entrant to take proficiency exams.
In addition, the issues of discipline and
of compliance with safety codes and truancy law is at issue in
Wisconsin. I do not know if this an issue in California.As far
as can be determined to date, here, it is the Anthroposphical
underpinnings of WE that determines discipline, compliance with
community safety standards & truancy.
In Wisconsin, the Waldorf High School, being
unaccredited, can only grant a GED. This is a second-class diploma.
I believe this is the shared material world
Dr. Alan Fine has cited. Mr Moorhead's personal cosmology is
not the issue. Nor is the cosmology of Rudolf Steiner. It is
the definition of cosmology and religion that is at issue. While
debateable, the field of debate is much more circumscribed than
are the actual belief systems.
Rather than second-guessing a judge who has
not even heard any evidence to date,if, indeed, a judge has already
been assigned the case, we would be better off discussing the
virtues and faults of the Waldorf pedagogy. The inclusion of
Waldorf Education into the public system in the United States
is the charter of this list.
BJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 11:01:24 -0400
Following such a logic renders everyone's
beliefs implicit in all their actions (an idea I might agree
with).
What then is your point?
A curious predicament is obtained when your
rationale is followed to its logical conclusion: Should all god
fearing individuals who happen to teach be forced to attend belief
system cleansing courses? What of Hindus, Jews and Muslims in
education? If anthros are banned from the classroom, who is next?
What would you say to an anthro teaching in a state school?
If one is to believe your allegations (and
those of PLANS) how is it that other god fearing (i.e. religious)
individuals manage to keep their belief systems out of the classroom?
Are they not imbued with an equal proportion spirituality? Is
there some special property of anthro, separating it from other
religions (so now it is religion+), which by its very nature
is contagious? Finally, since I was exposed to this spiritual
pathogen for some twelve years, and if it is possible to spread
this dreaded religion+, would I not have a serious case of this
dread condition?
I would be happy to testify, in a court of
law, I show no such symptoms (attributed to anthro).
e
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
Critics argue that not only does anthroposophy
serve as the foundation of Waldorf education, which leads to
the religious methodology, but that anthroposphy *is* implicit
in the classroom curricula as well. This will be brought out
in the California courts, examples of which have been given at
Mr. Dugan's website.
If the courts determine that it is such
a violation, so be it. I don't support waldorf public schools
in their practice, and would welcome this conclusion.
Time will tell.
Yeah, and the truth will set you free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:26:49 -0400
Bob Jones says:
Mr Flannery, who has a law degree, but
has never practiced law, appears to be correct: this is best
left to the specialists. It would appear that Mr Morehead is
such a specialist. Why is his Baptist affiliation not granted
the same credibility and validity as the Anthroposophical affiliations
of AWSNA or RSC?
Whether either group's theological beliefs agree with the other's
is immaterial: Mr. Morehead can give a detailed, factual analysis
of Anthroposophical beliefs, compare and contrast them with the
beliefs of a multitude of other denominations or totally separate
religions, and present an informed opinion on what constitutes
a religion.
I can't speak for the courts as to how Mr.
Morehead would stack up in relative terms against AWSNA or RSC,
but here's what his own website has to say about the issue of
credibility:
"TruthQuest's emphasis on contrasting
belief systems of various groups with biblical Christianity,
while necessary and important, will carry little weight in a
court of law."
(From the TruthQuest website, on the FAQ page,
near the heading "Does TruthQuest support Deprogramming?")
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:24:08
At 12:26 PM 4/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
I can't speak for the courts as to how
Mr. Morehead would stack up in relative terms against AWSNA or
RSC, but here's what his own website has to say about the issue
of credibility:
"TruthQuest's emphasis on contrasting belief systems of
various groups with biblical Christianity, while necessary and
important, will carry little weight in a court of law."
(From the TruthQuest website, on the FAQ page, near the heading
"Does TruthQuest support Deprogramming?")
Ouch! Sounds like we're still questioning
credibility here. (Incidentally, I did give a deposition in the
Sacramento lawsuit and will provide testimony if it goes to trial.
For those who doubt my credibility, consult my article which
will stand on its own merits. I will allow the courts to decide
the value of my credibility and testimony.)
And please put this statement from our website
in proper context. We frequently get requests for assistance
in reclaiming family members from authoritarian religious groups,
and are asked if we support deprogramming. We do not support
deprogramming, but we do recommend a voluntary, ethical, information-based
method called exit counseling. The point of the above quote,
in context, is that in regards to this particular issue, the
courts would likely give more weight to an organization which
takes a behavioral or psychological approach and definition to
"cults," rather than theological, although this is
not necessarily so. Many fine evangelical scholars write and
testify on these issues (e.g., Ron Enroth of Westmont College,
an evangelical sociologist). This does not mean that my testimony,
or that of TQI, will be suspect in the issue of Anthroposophy
as a religion.
Perhaps we can move beyond the questioning
of personal backgrounds and move to the real issues at hand,
such as Is Anthroposophy religious?, Does it serve as the foundation
for Waldorf education?, and if so, Should it be in public education?
These are the issues which must be addressed based upon the facts,
and not by a mere appeal to authority.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:08:34 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Jones
I am not a lawyer, but I have had experience
with the civil law in my life.
I just had to laugh when I saw your comment.
I've been in charge of bringing my law office into a state of
the art system, and most of the people here are being exposed
to email for the very first time. I thought it would be amusing
for them to receive a listing of the various email acronyms and
emoticons they might encounter.
I told them that they might see the common
acronym of "IANAL" -- which, of course, translates
to "I am not a lawyer." I indicated that in almost
all cases that acronym would immediately be followed by the word
"but".
Sorry, nothing personal.
Now, let me turn to your description of the
U.S. judicial system. I invite Steve Premo to step in to correct
me wherever necessary, for though I've conducted my share of
litigation, Steve works much more closely with the judicial system
than I.
It is my understanding that a judge obtains
his facts from specialists & experts.
Incorrect.
A judge obtains his facts from persons who
have witnessed the facts. Specialists and experts are sometimes
employed by one side or another to interpret facts and render
opinions where facts cannot otherwise be readily understood or
interpreted in the absence of technical expertise.
These people with knowledge in selected
areas are deposed, under oath, in the presence of the lawyers
from both sides. This is called discovery. There is some challange
allowed in the deposition procedure of the witness by the opposing
lawyer, as well as counsel allowed from the witnesses' lawyer.
At the actual trial, the contents of the depositions are presented
into evidence and cross-examination is allowed, as is rebuttal.Other
witnesses, some of them designated "expert" will be
allowed to testify & be cross-examined at the trial. It is
the job of the lawyers from each side to present the facts discovered
via deposition, testimony and entered from other credible sources,
public and private, in a manner beneficial to their client's
case and to cast doubt and aspersion on the facts beneficial
to the case of the opponent. This is why our system is called
adversarial.
Your description is substantively correct,
but keep in mind that "expert witnesses" are different
from ordinary witnesses to the facts.
One other thing -- the contents of depositions
are not ordinarily entered into evidence. The testimony of witnesses
is taken at trial, and much of it may be duplicative of the testimony
which was taken at the depositions. Ordinarily, the most common
use of depositions at trial include (1) confronting a witness
on cross-examination with an inconsistency between present testimony
and that which had been given before in the deposition (this
is called "impeaching credibility") and (2) where a
witness is otherwise unavailable or the parties agree to submit
the deposition in lieu of testimony. Judges much prefer live
testimony over written testimony if they are going to weigh the
credibility of the witness.
To the best of my knowledge, judges do
not gather their own facts nor render a personal opinion based
on what they think or feel. Judges must weigh the evidence, it's
credibility and the credibility of the presenters of that evidence
and render a verdict based on the above and the precedent of
case law, as well as the canon of law and the statutes.
Depends.
In a non-jury trial, the judge is the finder
of facts. That doesn't mean that the judge goes out to gather
facts. Rather, the judge sifts through the facts which have been
presented and makes a finding as to the "ultimate"
facts. In making that finding, the judge has to connect the dots
and draw the picture, and connecting the dots often requires
a judge to supply missing information and arguments based upon
the judge's own thinking processes, including whatever prejudices
or political ideas which might be inside that judge's mind. You
are correct that they are not supposed to render a "personal"
opinion (there was a recent minor uproar that one of our Supreme
Court justices used the word "I" rather than "we"
in a written opinion), but I've seen more than one lawyer leaving
a courtroom muttering under his breath that he wondered whether
the judge's home life or what he ate for breakfast had affected
a judicial decision.
Mr. Tolz appears to be on a fishing expedition,
on one hand, and to be engaged in a psych-out, on the other.
You've completely lost me there. What in heavens
name do you think I'd be fishing for, and what kind of "psych-out"
are you describing?
Mr Flannery, who has a law degree, but
has never practiced law, appears to be correct: this is best
left to the specialists.
Mr. Flannery will correct me if I am wrong,
but I think the "specialists" he's referring to are
the lawyers, not those who hold themselves as specialists in
what constitutes a religion.
It would appear that Mr Morehead is such
a specialist. Why is his Baptist affiliation not granted the
same credibility and validity as the Anthroposophical affiliations
of AWSNA or RSC?
I doubt that the judge in the PLANS case would
give much credence to either side's "specialists" on
what constitutes a religion.
If the majority of credible evidence shows
Anthroposophy to be a religion, then a pedagogy based upon it
may or may not be in violation of the Establishment Clause of
the Constitution Of the United States. The trickiest judgement
call here, IMO, will be whether that basis alone is grounds for
excluding Waldorf pedagogy from public classrooms.It will come
down to the question of the influence of Anthroposophy upon the
content and the manner of presentation of the curriculum.
I agree with you 100% on your legal analysis.
In my opinion, what you've said there is succinct and squarely
on point.
Keep in mind though, that there are non-federal
issues in the PLANS lawsuit which could result in a determination
in favor of PLANS without there being a finding one way or the
other on the U.S. Constitutional issues.
However, the educational content of the
curriculum is also being examined. The factual content of education,
at least in Wisconsin, must meet a minimum standard set by the
State. This is an issue locally.
Right you are. That's a local issue, not a
constitutional question. Each locality is entitled to set its
own standards and requirements for education.
Rather than second-guessing a judge who
has not even heard any evidence to date,if, indeed, a judge has
already been assigned the case, we would be better off discussing
the virtues and faults of the Waldorf pedagogy. The inclusion
of Waldorf Education into the public system in the United States
is the charter of this list.
Nah. It's too much fun discussing the legal
issues, and I think a large number of the non-legal contributors
to this list would agree. The PLANS lawsuit is a critical component
of its activity. I highly doubt that Dan Dugan would consider
such discussions to be off-topic.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:55:19 +1200
Ezra Beeman wrote in answer to John Morehead
(quoted at the end of this post):
Following such a logic renders everyone's
beliefs implicit in all their actions (an idea I might agree
with).
What then is your point?
A curious predicament is obtained when
your rationale is followed to its logical conclusion: Should
all god fearing individuals who happen to teach be forced to
attend belief system cleansing courses? What of Hindus, Jews
and Muslims in education? If anthros are banned from the classroom,
who is next? What would you say to an anthro teaching in a state
school?
If one is to believe your allegations (and
those of PLANS) how is it that other god fearing (i.e. religious)
individuals manage to keep their belief systems out of the classroom?
Are they not imbued with an equal proportion spirituality?
Michael KOPP says:
Public educators who have strong beliefs often
_don't_ keep their personal beliefs out of the classroom.
In some locales in the U.S. (and elsewhere)
this suits the prevailaing nature of the population. This is
true in the "Bible Belt", for example, those states
where fundamentalist Christian religion is preponderant in the
population.
Some states even enshrined religion in classes
by law, earlier in this century. Remember the Scopes trial?
But in any locale, those people who don't
want religion in their kids' public classrooms -- no matter what
religion -- have a remedy in law: the establishment clause of
the First Amendment to the Constitution.
When parents who become aware of religious
practice in public schools -- either by individual teachers acting
on their own initiative, or by officially sanctioned policy --
take those issues to the authority of a court of law, they almost
invariably succeed in having those religious practices banned.
This is the "belief system cleansing
course" of which you speak, and it is not, which is the
course PLANS seeks to follow in dealing with Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical/ (SWA) infiltration into public classrooms.
So PLANS, and SWA critics, are adherents of a political system
which controls public schools.
It is a system which was developed by profoundly
religious people who wanted to build a new state which not only
gave them the freedom to _practice_ religion in any way they
wished, but would protect other people from the imposition of
any religion imposed by the state.
In the case of teachers' religious beliefs,
its only purpose is to ensure that teachers do not overtly or
covertly proselytize about their beliefs. It has no right or
ability to affect their holding those beliefs or practicing them
outside their classrooms, and neither it nor the secular people
who rely on it wish to or try to use it to control people's beliefs.
By calling PLANS people and SWA critics fascists,
you are calling the system under which they -- and you -- live
a fascist political system. This may be in character with your
political libertarianism, but, as ordinary people understand
fascism, the U.S. legal system is not fascist.
Fascism prevents people from believing or
acting on beliefs in private as well as public spheres. Neither
I nor PLANS nor any other critic I have read on this list or
anywhere else wishes to prevent SWA people from believing whatever
they wish, and practicing it in private.
The difference with Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposohical
infiltration of the public school system is that SWA people are
extremely slippery when it comes to saying exactly what SWA is.
BEEMAN:
Is there some special property of anthro,
separating it from other religions (so now it is religion+),
which by its very nature is contagious?
Finally, since I was exposed to this spiritual pathogen for some
twelve years, and if it is possible to spread this dreaded religion+,
would I not have a serious case of this dread condition?
I would be happy to testify, in a court of law, I show no such
symptoms (attributed to anthro).
e
KOPP:
Well, if you hold up a mirror to yourself
-- or read over the body of work you have produced on this list
-- I think you will see that you _are_ infected. No, I take that
back: you can't see beyond the end of your own arrogant nose.
I am glad to hear, though, you agreeing that
Anthroposophy is a religion.
Perhaps you can be called as an expert witness
in the PLANS suit, as Bob Jones has outlined for the legal-beagle
Robert Flannery, who doesn't understand what judges do, in a
country that does not use the Napoleonic system of justice.
I think, however, that your statement that
you might be considered a "hostile witness" if you
volunteer to testify that you show no symptoms of SWA belief.
I'd love to see a good lawyer cross examine
you. Your performance in your rants against criticism of your
ideas on this list indicates that you would be dead meat, like
William Jennings Bryan was to Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial.
And before you or some slick willie from the
Defenders points out the irony that Darrow and Scopes lost anyway
(and Tennessee is still one of the most backward states educationally
in regard to science and rationality), let me point out that
times have changed, and this case will be heard in (I believe)
a federal court, in California, in 2000.
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
Critics argue that not only does anthroposophy
serve as the foundation of Waldorf education, which leads to
the religious methodology, but that anthroposphy *is* implicit
in the classroom curricula as well. This will be brought out
in the California courts, examples of which have been given at
Mr. Dugan's website.
If the courts determine that it is such
a violation, so be it. I don't support waldorf public schools
in their practice, and would welcome this conclusion.
Time will tell.
Yeah, and the truth will set you free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:25:08 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
It sounds as if you are mistakenly equating
Steiner's "esoteric Christianity," an occultic, unbiblical
and unhistorical counterfeit series of teachings, with more in
common with Gnosticism, long regarded by orthodoxy as heretical,
than with historic orthodox Christianity. There is no contradiction
between holding to orthodox Christianity and working with secularists
to oppose a religious-based education in public schools in violation
of the Establishment Clause.
You are saying that I have studied anthroposophy,
Gnosticism, and traditional Christianity for thirty years only
to be told by you as a representativer for "orthodoxy"
that I am doing a mistake? Who is the judge of whether or not
I am making mistakes in the spiritual realm?
What kind of authority does "orthodoxy"
have over someone like myself and my family?
This is a ranting ad hominem which does
not address the issues or the purpose of this list. Please try
to stay on track and offer cogent arguments in support of any
positions you may be advocating.
I would only like to know what happens to
your secular friends when they die. Please tell.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:57:52 +0100
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
Perhaps we can move beyond the questioning
of personal backgrounds and move to the real issues at hand,
such as Is Anthroposophy religious?,
I think the question is better stated as "Is
anthroposophy a religion?"; the distinction is important.
This has been hacked back and forth for years.
If you give me an inclusive/exclusive definition of "religion"
(i.e. one which will include all things which are religion and
will exclude all those which aren't), we might be able to agree
an answer.
However, as far as legality goes, this is
probably irrelevant; the courts will decide (and, with all due
respect to Bob and Steve, legal decisions are not always "right"
-- one of my favourite lunacies from this side of the pond is
the EC legal classification of the carrot as a fruit, because
it can be used to make jam!)
Does it serve as the foundation for Waldorf
education?,
Of course it does.
Should it be in public education?
Is that a legal or a moral question? Only
the court can decide the answer if it is a legal one. If it is
a moral one, I ask "why not?" -- the parents of Waldorf
pupils pay their taxes just like everyone else -- why shouldn't
their children therefore have their education subsidised just
like the children of other tax-payers? And yes, I would extend
this to all forms of education, provided certain educational
standards are met. Only then can there be *real* choice for parents
as to the education their children receive (choice is otherwise
restricted to the wealthy -- hardly egalitarian), and the state
would still not be seen to be favouring one religion's education
over another's (or over an irreligious education) -- why are
so many opposed to *real* freedom of choice?
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 06:30:01 -0400
At 07:19 AM 4/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
John Morehead returns the favor, and asks:
What are your presuppositions and qualifications
to discuss and advocate Waldorf?
Good question.
Mr. Flannery,
Thank you for the response and the exchange.
John Morehead
You're welcome. Looking forward to more of
the same.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:09:59
At 08:25 AM 4/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
You are saying that I have studied anthroposophy,
Gnosticism, and traditional Christianity for thirty years only
to be told by you as a representativer for "orthodoxy"
that I am doing a mistake?
Yes.
Who is the judge of whether or not I am
making mistakes in the spiritual realm?
Hopefully your information of the "spiritual
realm" has some objective content which is provided by some
type of standard. When you claim, or infer, that Steiner's esoteric
Christianity is compatible with historic Christian orthodoxy,
this is blatanly false. The defining texts of historic Christian
orthodoxy would be found in the New Testament, and also in the
historic, ecumenical creeds which arose from the church in response
to heresy, such as Gnosticism. Thus, the "court of appeal"
in this case must be the initial claims and doctrines made by
the early Christians as recorded in their "Scripture,"
and not merely subjective experiences of alleged "higher
worlds" through "supersensible knowledge."
I certainly respect your rights to believe
and propogate whatever you want in a free society, however, false
representation must be pointed out. Interestingly, the majority
of the New Testament does just this, pointing out authentic Christian
teaching in contrast to heretical distortions.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:19:00
At 07:57 AM 4/7/99 +0100, you wrote:
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
Perhaps we can move beyond the questioning
of personal backgrounds and move to the real issues at hand,
such as Is Anthroposophy religious?,
I think the question is better stated as
"Is anthroposophy a religion?"; the distinction is
important.
There are differing definitions of "religion",
from a religious studies perspective (and the differences of
approach within that), and from a legal perspective. As far as
the religious studies aspect goes, while we should note the subtle
distinction between religion, religious, spirituality, religious
philosophy, etc., this really involves a technical hair splitting
which does not absolve anthroposophy from being religious in
nature. Scholars of religion frequently classify it as religion,
as a part of the Western esoteric tradition of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, and now part of the New Age movement.
Scholarly reference works on religion list anthroposophy as a
religion, and Steiner as a major influence on the New Age movement.
But even if it could not be demonstrated that
anthroposophy meets a religious studies definition of religion,
the courts may stil classify it as such. They have taken an increasingly
broader definition of religion to account not only for traditional
theistic faiths, but also for the growth of new religious movements
which have "non-traditional" elements and expressions,
and which may not even believe in a Supreme Being.
Does it serve as the foundation for Waldorf
education?,
Of course it does.
We're agreed.
Should it be in public education?
Is that a legal or a moral question?
Legal question. The courts will decide shortly.
Interested individuals may want to see my
initial article on Waldorf, "New Age Education Supported
By Public Tax Dollars?: Waldorf Charter School Controversy,"
at <http://www.watchman.org/reltop/waldorfcontroversy.htm>.
I will notify the list when my second artile on the religious
pedagogy of Waldorf is available online.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:33:55 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Tonkin
Should it be in public education?
Is that a legal or a moral question? Only
the court can decide the answer if it is a legal one. If it is
a moral one, I ask "why not?" -- the parents of Waldorf
pupils pay their taxes just like everyone else -- why shouldn't
their children therefore have their education subsidised just
like the children of other tax-payers? And yes, I would extend
this to all forms of education, provided certain educational
standards are met. Only then can there be *real* choice for parents
as to the education their children receive (choice is otherwise
restricted to the wealthy -- hardly egalitarian), and the state
would still not be seen to be favouring one religion's education
over another's (or over an irreligious education) -- why are
so many opposed to *real* freedom of choice?
Because, as construed by the judiciary, the
U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from either fostering
or condemning religion. In its simplest application, this would
prohibit the government from paying for an education which clearly
fosters religious inculcation.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 01:04:08 +0200
I asked:
Who is the judge of whether or not I am
making mistakes in the spiritual realm?
John W. Morehead replied:
Hopefully your information of the "spiritual realm"
has some objective content which is provided by some type of
standard.
Is "spiritual matters" more comprehensible
to you? The point is that your opinion has zero significance
for my spiritual life.
When you claim, or infer, that Steiner's
esoteric Christianity is compatible with historic Christian orthodoxy,
this is blatanly false.
The compatibility in question is a matter
of personal understanding. I used to know a Roman Catholic anthroposophist
in her seventies in Houston who would disagree with you. And
her "authority" is as good as yours.
I have not made the specific claim or inference
that you define above. The point is that I have many conceptions
in common with "orthodox" Christians, and so did Rudolf
Steiner. By the same token, Christianity and Buddhism is perfectly
compatible, but I have read American "Orthodox" Protestant
theologians who claim that Buddha was a child of Satan and a
part of his plan to undermine Christianity. This is a truly twisted
and disturbed understanding of religious truth.
Gnosticism covered a very broad spectrum,
and there are only a few aspects of anthroposophy that are shared
with certain Gnostics.
The defining texts of historic Christian
orthodoxy would be found in the New Testament,
Anthroposophy also builds a lot on the New
Testament. Rudolf Steiner's many lecture cycles on the various
Gospel texts illustrate this quite clearly. What "historic
Christian orthodoxy" is concerned, it has always been the
servant of political tyrants using religion as a tool for oppression
of dissent.
historic Christian orthodoxy and also in
the historic, ecumenical creeds which arose from the church in
response to heresy, such as Gnosticism.
The church's treatment of heretics proves
how afraid they were (and often still are) of the truth. It reminds
me of how political dissent is handled in Nigeria and elsewhere
today.
Thus, the "court of appeal" in
this case must be the initial claims and doctrines made by the
early Christians as recorded in their "Scripture,"
and not merely subjective experiences of alleged "higher
worlds" through "supersensible knowledge."
The doctrines of the early Christians you
refer to were also merely subjective experiences of alleged higher
worlds through supersensible knowledge. Just ask your fellow
WE critics, who concur wholeheartedly with this statement.
I certainly respect your rights to believe and propogate whatever
you want in a free society, however, false representation must
be pointed out.
Are you saying that my representation is false?
On what ground?
Interestingly, the majority of the New
Testament does just this, pointing out authentic Christian teaching
in contrast to heretical distortions.
The distortions are the works of the orthodox
churches that suppressed the truth by burning or torturing to
death those who questioned their lies.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen
Tonkin
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 03:39:43 +0100
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
There are differing definitions of "religion",
from a religious studies perspective
I'm sure there are, but you don't say what
these definitions are -- you appeared to miss my question about
definition -- but have merely asserted, without supporting definition,
that this "does not absolve anthroposophy from being religious
in nature", "Scholars of religion frequently classify
it as religion", and "Scholarly reference works on
religion list anthroposophy as a religion". None of this
is actually "proof" or "evidence", any more
than my assertion (as an anthropop) that it is not, from a religious
studies perspective, a religion.
All you say *may* be true, but it is impossible
to tell unless you are prepared to tell us your criteria for
making this decision, hence my request for your definition of
religion. In case my direct question got lost amongst the other
waffle I wrote, may I repost it in the hope that you will give
it a direct answer:
Please give an inclusive/exclusive definition
of "religion", i.e. one which will include all things
which are religion and will exclude all those which aren't.
Until we have this definition to use as a
basis, we are going to be stuck in the "yes it is/no it
isn't" mud-stuck round of assertion and counter-assertion
which periodically bedevils this list. It will be a relief when
various legal systems make legal pronouncements, although I can
foresee the "interesting" situation of "country
A" deciding that legally it is a decision and "country
B" deciding that it isn't.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Tolz, Robert writes:
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Tonkin
Should it be in public education?
Is that a legal or a moral question? Only
the court can decide the answer if it is a legal one. If it is
a moral one, I ask "why not?" -- the parents of Waldorf
pupils pay their taxes just like everyone else --
[snip]
Because, as construed by the judiciary, the U.S. Constitution
prohibits the government from either fostering or condemning
religion. In its simplest application, this would prohibit the
government from paying for an education which clearly fosters
religious inculcation.
But bob, what does the US Constitution have
to do with morality? Stephen clearly agrees that the legal issue
is legal, then asked about the moral question. Do you feel that
the constitutionality a moral measuring stick?
--Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:43:28 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch
[TOLZ]
Because, as construed by the judiciary,
the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from either fostering
or condemning religion. In its simplest application, this would
prohibit the government from paying for an education which clearly
fosters religious inculcation.
[MICHAEL HIRSCH]
But bob, what does the US Constitution
have to do with morality? Stephen clearly agrees that the legal
issue is legal, then asked about the moral question. Do you feel
that the constitutionality a moral measuring stick?
To some extent, yes. Any piece of legislation
is designed in one way or another to set forth what the governing
body thinks is right, ethical and moral, how we should be treating
each other and how we should be living together in peace. It's
not something I'd make a big argument over, and it's something
I'm really thinking about for the first time, but it seems to
me that the Constitution's prohibition dictation about the separation
of church and state is in fact a moral judgment. In large part
I think it's turned out well.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: redon
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 06:10:46 -0500
Because, as construed by the judiciary,
the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from either fostering
or condemning religion. In its simplest application, this would
prohibit the government from paying for an education which clearly
fosters religious inculcation.
Bob Tolz
The First Amendment States: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The government can not establish one religion
nor prohibit any one religion from exercising thereof.
TTBOMK the government dose not by any constitutional
law have to pay or provide for the education of its children.
Tax payers pay local taxes for local schools
aided by some federally taxed payer funds.
As I pointed out before a state supreme court
has ruled concerning taxed money providing children who are educated
in Catholic, Lutheran, Private, etc. schools...
"...it has a secular purpose, it does
not have the primary effect of advancing religion, and it does
not lead to an extensive entanglement between the state and sectarian
schools."
If you want real freedom then maybe you would
agree that the government should get out of this business of
education all together? But, if we are going to agree on the
idea that children need to be educated then do not limit another
parents civil rights and discriminate because of their economic
class. This is not a Communist State Society, allowing parents
to make the decision and take the responsibility to choose what
is best for their child is one aspect of freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John &
Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:20:28
At 03:39 AM 4/8/99 +0100, you wrote:
Please give an inclusive/exclusive definition
of "religion", i.e. one which will include all things
which are religion and will exclude all those which aren't.
I will respond in two parts, the first in
this e-mail from a legal perspective, and in a separate post
from scholarly definitions of religion.
Since Waldorf education is now before the
court system in Sacramento, it is important to look at legal
considerations related to religion in the context of the Constitution.
As was pointed out in the Malnak v. Yogi case,
"the subjective characterizations by individuals of teachings
as religious or not religious in their systems of categorization
cannot be determinative of whether or not the teachings are religious
within the meaning of the first amendment" (Malnak v. Yogi,
440 F. Supp. 1284 [1977]). So regardless of whether the case
can be made from a religious studies perspective that Anthroposophy
meets a religious definition, subjective definitions of such
are not necessarily determinative in a court of law. The court
went on to state that it "is interested in the term religion
as it is used in the Constitution and has no interest in attempting
to decide an academic dispute among theologians as to the best
approach to defining religiou for their professional purposes...None
of these [religiously defining] elements need be present, however,
for a court to determine that a practice or belief is religious
within the meaning of the first amendment.
"While expert opinion is invaluable in
certain cases, a court, in dealing with a constitutional term,
must be governed more by prior judicial findings than by the
opinions of experts."
It would seem that expert testimony in defining
religion and Anthroposophy will be reviewed by the court, prior
judicial findings may be the deciding factor in this case.
In my second post (Friday) I will provide
accepted scholarly definitions of religion, note a few of the
scholarly religious reference works which classify Anthroposophy
as a religion, and note some statements from Steiner that he
considered Anthroposophy/Waldorf as a religious methodology.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 9565
[Sune
responds in a different thread.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 15:37:57
At 01:04 AM 4/8/99 +0200, you wrote:
Is "spiritual matters" more comprehensible
to you? The point is that your opinion has zero significance
for my spiritual life.
Tarjei,
I am not trying to be confrontational. Just
trying to correct what I believe are misstatements in your post.
I was not attempting to say what you can or
cannot believe, or what is significant for your subjective spiritual
life. I specifically stated that I support freedom of religion.
However, when you move beyond a private, subjective affirmation,
into the public realm, and state or infer that esoteric Christianity
is compatible with historic orthodox Christianity, that is a
claim which is open to confirmation or falsification, by objective
means. Whether or not you choose to accept the results of such
analysis is up to you.
When you claim, or infer, that Steiner's
esoteric Christianity is compatible with historic Christian orthodoxy,
this is blatanly false.
The compatibility in question is a matter
of personal understanding. I used to know a Roman Catholic anthroposophist
in her seventies in Houston who would disagree with you. And
her "authority" is as good as yours.
This question goes beyond mere subjective
feelings or affirmations. It is a public truth claim subject
to analysis. I've known a lot of people making contradictory,
unsubstantiated or false claims from a variety of religious or
irreligious perspectives. The question is whether or not the
evidence supports such beliefs. My claim is that it does not,
and I can provide evidence to support my assertion if you'd care
to pursue it off list.
I have not made the specific claim or inference
that you define above. The point is that I have many conceptions
in common with "orthodox" Christians, and so did Rudolf
Steiner.
Steiner adhered to a form of esoteric Christianity
influenced not so much by the New Testament documents or the
historic ecumenical creeds, but much more so by gnosticism, Rosicrucianism,
Theosophy, hermeticism, an esoteric interpretation of the Bible,
personal mystical experiences, and other influences. There is
not much in common between orthodox Christianity and the esoteric
Christianity of Steiner.
By the same token, Christianity and Buddhism
is perfectly compatible...[small snip]
Not if one recognizes the law of non-contradiction.
I offer two examples. Buddhism's view of the Ultimate, can refer
to the Void, or a deified Buddha, among other things within the
varieties of Buddhist practice. By contrast, Ultimate Reality
for Christianity is a Personal and transcendent God. Likewise,
Jesus may be recognized by Buddhists (if at all) as simply another
wise sage pursuing his own path to enlightenment. By contrast,
Christianity affirms the unique nature of Christ, that He was
the unique incarnation of God in human flesh, who died a substitionary
death for human sin. So while both Buddhism and Christianity
may be false, they cannot both be true, and they certainly are
not "perfectly compatible." In fact, they are contradictory.
In religious studies it is helpful to not only acknowledge the
similarities in various religious traditions, but also the important
and foundational differences.
Gnosticism covered a very broad spectrum,
and there are only a few aspects of anthroposophy that are shared
with certain Gnostics.
I agree. Steiner borrowed from gnostic influences,
among many others, put
together in a unique fashion by Steiner to form Anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy also builds a lot on the
New Testament. Rudolf Steiner's many lecture cycles on the various
Gospel texts illustrate this quite clearly.
But look at the unique things that Steiner
found in the New Testament. Certainly not orthodoxy. The reason
was Steiner's use of a mystical, esoteric, subjective method,
contrary to any grammatico-historical hermeneutic. This caused
Steiner, and others who use a similar methodology, to arrive
at an interpretation at variance from the author's intended meaning.
And when this happens, you are misinterpreting. The goal of literary
interpretation is to recover, as best as possible, the original
meaning of the author. An esoteric interpretive method not only
uses a questionable practice to interpret the New Testament,
it also interprets the New Testament through a foreign "world
view" grid, that of Western esotericism, and not Judeo-Christian
theism.
What "historic Christian orthodoxy"
is concerned, it has always been the servant of political tyrants
using religion as a tool for oppression of dissent.
This may be the contemporary postmodern understanding
of history, but it can be demonstrated that the process of defining
the creeds arose in church history as a result of a concern for
theologically revealed truth in response to heretical error,
not as a power play of oppression.
The church's treatment of heretics proves
how afraid they were (and often still are) of the truth. It reminds
me of how political dissent is handled in Nigeria and elsewhere
today.
I must have missed something. Is the church
suppressing political dissidents in Nigeria, or is the church
quite often the object of such oppression? While the church may
have responded *at times* in an errant fashion, nevertheless,
there is nothing inherently wrong with defending truth against
error. I think you would agree with me since you are defending
your view of truth against my own. And I assure you, even though
we disagree, I won't burn you at the stake, and neither will
the rest of orthodox Christendom. :)
The doctrines of the early Christians you
refer to were also merely subjective experiences of alleged higher
worlds through supersensible knowledge. Just ask your fellow
WE critics, who concur wholeheartedly with this statement.
While skeptics on this list might not feel
that the supernatural experiences recorded in the New Testament
were veridical, the New Testament writers certainly believed
they were. While they did have visions in the mind which they
believed were caused by God, these and other doctrines were not
merely subjective experiences of "higher worlds" discerned
through psychic development. The New Testament authors believed
their's was a revealed religion with objective referents. For
example, the early Christians believed that they had an experience
with a literal, physically resurrected Christ, not merely an
esoteric, subjective experience
of an etheric body. New Testament scholars generally concede
that this belief in a literal, physical resurrection was responsible
for the origin of the Christian faith. The reports of the physical
and tangible nature of the Resurrection body and the empty tomb
narratives, are at variance with the claim that at least this
early Christian doctrine was merely a "subjective experience
of higher worlds through supersensible knowledge." The only
way one can arrive at such a conclusion is to utilize an esoteric
intepretation of the texts while viewing them through an esoteric
worldview.
I certainly respect your rights to believe
and propogate whatever you want in a free society, however, false
representation must be pointed out.
Are you saying that my representation is
false? On what ground?
Yes. I have given examples above. If you'd
like other examples, I'd be happy to provide them to you off
list.I think the point of this list is not to answer, "Is
Anthroposophy compatible with orthodox Christianity?," but,
"Is Anthroposophy religious?," and if so, "Does
it belong in public education?"
Interestingly, the majority of the New
Testament does just this, pointing out authentic Christian teaching
in contrast to heretical distortions.
The distortions are the works of the orthodox
churches that suppressed the truth by burning or torturing to
death those who questioned their lies.
This is your claim, following a revisionist
and postmodern interpretation of church history. I would claim
this is not true, and ask for evidence, off list, to the contrary.
John Morehead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Tolz, Robert writes:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch
[TOLZ]
Because, as construed by the judiciary,
the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from either fostering
or condemning religion. In its simplest application, this would
prohibit the government from paying for an education which clearly
fosters religious inculcation.
[MICHAEL HIRSCH]
But bob, what does the US Constitution
have to do with morality? Stephen clearly agrees that the legal
issue is legal, then asked about the moral question. Do you feel
that the constitutionality a moral measuring stick?
To some extent, yes. Any piece of legislation
is designed in one way or another to set forth what the governing
body thinks is right, ethical and moral, how we should be treating
each other and how we should be living together in peace.
Yes, the people who pass it think it is moral,
ethical, etc. But I think the rest of us need our own moral compass
and can't rely on something someone else said.
It's not something I'd make a big argument
over, and it's something I'm really thinking about for the first
time, but it seems to me that the Constitution's prohibition
dictation about the separation of church and state is in fact
a moral judgment. In large part I think it's turned out well.
I agree. A good rule of thumb is not to cross
the constitution and especially the bill of rights. But it is
not infallible. It has been added to and subtracted from on occasion.
But it is certainly a better moral compass that laws passed by
legislature.
But I still think appealing to the constitution
when someone says "Yes, I understand the legal issues, but
what about the moral ones?" is a cop-out, especially when
talking to a Brit who might not give two figs for our constitution.
(Granted, PLANS is concerned with the US system only.)
What moral principle are you using (or should
I use) to decide the issue? Your response sounds like you are
saying "I have no applicable moral principles of my own,
so I am using the constitution instead," a statement that
I really doubt has any validity for you. You strike me as quite
principled and not in need of a document to tell you what is
right and what is wrong.
--Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 10:46:50 -0400
Well stated.
e
redon wrote:
If you want real freedom then maybe you
would agree that the government should get out of this business
of education all together?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 19:35:35 +0100
Michael Hirsch wrote:
But I still think appealing to the constitution
when someone says "Yes, I understand the legal issues, but
what about the moral ones?" is a cop-out, especially when
talking to a Brit who might not give two figs for our constitution.
Actually, I do. I'm probably a "minority
Brit" in this (comes of being dragged up in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe),
but I think I prefer the US system of government to the UK one.
(Granted, PLANS is concerned with the US
system only.)
Indeed.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:23:43 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch
But I still think appealing to the constitution
when someone says "Yes, I understand the legal issues, but
what about the moral ones?" is a cop-out, especially when
talking to a Brit who might not give two figs for our constitution.
(Granted, PLANS is concerned with the US system only.)
It was certainly not my intention to cop out
when the question was posed why we can't give religious or spiritual
education in the U.S. My reference to the Constitution was merely
an *explanation* of why things are as they are, and I don't think
the Constitution is likely going to be amended in the near future
to permit it.
What moral principle are you using (or should I use) to decide
the issue? Your response sounds like you are saying "I have
no applicable moral principles of my own, so I am using the constitution
instead," a statement that I really doubt has any validity
for you. You strike me as quite principled and not in need of
a document to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
--Michael
Personally, I think that the absence of any kind of religious/spiritual
environment in the schools is a kind of deadening influence among
the children. That's one of the reasons my family opted for a
private Waldorf school, and why I would not likely be pleased
with any other kind of private school as an alternative to a
public school education. But I certainly also appreciate the
claims by PLANS that Waldorf does not belong in a public school,
if it is presented with a spiritual bent, because the American
public has come to expect public education to be completely devoid
of spiritual influence.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 18:09:31 -0400
Stephen Tonkin - 4/7/99 10:39 PM
writes:
[snip] It will be a relief when various
legal systems make legal pronouncements [concerning the definition
of "religion"] [snip]
...and a bigger relief when they stop. /MRx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei
Straume
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophical Influence?
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 04:00:56 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
Tarjei,
I am not trying to be confrontational. Just trying to correct
what I believe are misstatements in your post.
I was not attempting to say what you can or cannot believe, or
what is significant for your subjective spiritual life. I specifically
stated that I support freedom of religion. However, when you
move beyond a private, subjective affirmation, into the public
realm, and state or infer that esoteric Christianity is compatible
with historic orthodox Christianity, that is a claim which is
open to confirmation or falsification, by objective means.
In that case you are going beyond the realm
of religion based on faith and entering the approach taken by
spiritual science, anthroposophy. If you are not doing this,
you are within the limits of faith-religion, where any talk of
objective proof is inapplicable.
By the same token, nobody can set up a boundary
between subjective belief and "objective public realm"
unless they they are taking the step from faith to knowledge,
from religion to science.
Whether or not you choose to accept the
results of such analysis is up to you.
Analysis is a part of the scientific method
and should be distinguished from traditional faith-religion.
When you claim, or infer, that Steiner's
esoteric Christianity is compatible with historic Christian orthodoxy,
this is blatanly false.
The compatibility in question is a matter
of personal understanding. I used to know a Roman Catholic anthroposophist
in her seventies in Houston who would disagree with you. And
her "authority" is as good as yours.
This question goes beyond mere subjective
feelings or affirmations. It is a public truth claim subject
to analysis. I've known a lot of people making contradictory,
unsubstantiated or false claims from a variety of religious or
irreligious perspectives.
These contradictions, lack of substantiation,
and falseness is all in your subjective lack of understanding,
or of misunderstanding, which you may share with your peers.
The lady in question had integrated Catholicism with anthroposophy.
I saw the harmony in it, which made it valid. You dont see this
harmony, but you cannot borrow criteria from the rules of intellectual
proof as used in the laboratory and apply these to the religious
philosophy of a senior citizen. That is an arrogant lack of respect
and a total misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of religious
concepts, which are ultra-rational by their very nature.
The question is whether or not the evidence
supports such beliefs.
Evidence or intellectual proof has nothing
to do with subjective religious beliefs.
My claim is that it does not, and I can
provide evidence to support my assertion if you'd care to pursue
it off list.
Your evidence probably convinces yourself
and your peers, but the hyper-intellectuality you thus apply
to religion is actually killing the religion in the process.
It surprises me that you call yourself an evangelist, or an evangelical,
when your line of reasoning is actually virulently anti-religious.
Orthodox Christianity runs into a very big problem here in regard
to two Gospel events. One is the Immaculate Conception of Mary
(fertilization without a male physical sperm); the other is the
flesh-physical Resurrestion and Ascension of christ. You may
play around with as many intellectual proofs as you want, but
your creed is in blatant contradiction with natural science;
it is a scientific impossibility. I am not mentioning this to
suggest that your creed is wrong, but to illustrate that you
cannot apply scientific concepts to it, like "providing
evidence."
I have not made the specific claim or inference
that you define above. The point is that I have many conceptions
in common with "orthodox" Christians, and so did Rudolf
Steiner.
Steiner adhered to a form of esoteric Christianity
influenced not so much by the New Testament documents or the
historic ecumenical creeds, but much more so by gnosticism, Rosicrucianism,
Theosophy, hermeticism, an esoteric interpretation of the Bible,
personal mystical experiences, and other influences. There is
not much in common between orthodox Christianity and the esoteric
Christianity of Steiner.
Your description of Steiner's Christology
is foggy and wishy-washy. He used the Bible to substantiate his
claims to a much greater extent than Gnosticism or hermiticism.
Having read the entire Bible myself, and having studied Christianity,
church history, and anthroposophy for more than thirty years,
I may say with authority and conviction that orthodox Christianity
and Steiner's esoteric Christianity have many traits in common
indeed, and that any individual may mold his own cosmology and
Christology from any combination of sources of his choosing.
And people are doing this all over Europe. And it is extremely
arrogant to say that you cannot do so, because when you say that,
you refuse to accept any line of reasoning except your own -
which you think is superior to all others.
By the same token, Christianity and Buddhism
is perfectle compatible...[small snip]
Not if one recognizes the law of non-contradiction.
I offer two examples. Buddhism's view of the Ultimate, can refer
to the Void, or a deified Buddha, among other things within the
varieties of Buddhist practice. By contrast, Ultimate Reality
for Christianity is a Personal and transcendent God. Likewise,
Jesus may be recognized by Buddhists (if at all) as simply another
wise sage pursuing his own path to enlightenment. By contrast,
Christianity affirms the unique nature of Christ, that He was
the unique incarnation of God in human flesh, who died a substitionary
death for human sin. So while both Buddhism and Christianity
may be false, they cannot both be true, and they certainly are
not "perfectly compatible." In fact, they are contradictory.
In religious studies it is helpful to not only acknowledge the
similarities in various religious traditions, but also the important
and foundational differences.
You are either
ignorant of, or deliberately overlooking, the fact that anthroposophical
Christology also affirms the unique nature of Christ, that He
was the unique incarnation of God in human flesh, who died a
substitionary death for human sin. This is one of the key concepts
that anthroposophy holds in common with traditional Christianity.
You are also obviously unaware that there
are Buddhist monks who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.
The blending of Christianity and Buddhism is happening all over
the world along with the increase of believers in reincarnation,
also among traditional Christians.
Your main objection to the harmony of christianity
and Buddhism, which you base upon "the law of non-contradiction"
is an incomprehensible abstraction which is conveniently ignored
by the rising mumber of Buddhist Christians like myself.
Gnosticism covered a very broad spectrum,
and there are only a few aspects of anthroposophy that are shared
with certain Gnostics.
I agree. Steiner borrowed from gnostic
influences, among many others, put together in a unique fashion
by Steiner to form Anthroposophy.
Your description of how Steiner developed
anthroposophy is false, but I'll skip my comments and corrections
for now.
Anthroposophy also builds a lot on the
New Testament. Rudolf Steiner's many lecture cycles on the various
Gospel texts illustrate this quite clearly.
But look at the unique things that Steiner
found in the New Testament. Certainly not orthodoxy. The reason
was Steiner's use of a mystical, esoteric, subjective method,
contrary to any grammatico-historical hermeneutic. This caused
Steiner, and others who use a similar methodology, to arrive
at an interpretation at variance from the author's intended meaning.
What author? Moses? Luke? John? Since Steiner
obviously knew and understood those seers of old a lot better
than you or any spiritually blind grammarians and book-worms,
the "interpretation" was at variance not with the author,
but with the orthodox scribes and pharisees of modern times -
those who are blind to the living spirit and are choking in the
dust of libraries and headspins.
And when this happens, you are misinterpreting.
The goal of literary interpretation is to recover, as best as
possible, the original meaning of the author.
In case of old documents, that cannot be done
without spiritual research independent of external documents.
After the spiritual investigation has been done, comparisons
can be made with the original documents to see if they are accurate.
An esoteric interpretive method not only
uses a questionable practice to interpret the New Testament,
it also interprets the New Testament through a foreign "world
view" grid, that of Western esotericism, and not Judeo-Christian
theism.
And who says that Judeo-Christian theism is
superior to Western esotericism if they are indeed in conflict?
And what about the Quabalah?
When you say the esoteric method uses a "questionable
practice," what do you mean by that? That you would like
to question it? Who cares?
What "historic Christian orthodoxy"
is concerned, it has always been the servant of political tyrants
using religion as a tool for oppression of dissent.
This may be the contemporary postmodern
understanding of history, but it can be demonstrated that the
process of defining the creeds arose in church history as a result
of a concern for theologically revealed truth in response to
heretical error, not as a power play of oppression.
What is the difference between "theologically
revealed truth" and "empirical, spiritually revealed
truth" e.g. as told by the original Evangelists? You are
judging the standard of Christian understanding by the yet unevolved
intellect of thousands of years ago - the same intellect you
are now abusing by killing religion with scientism. And from
the perspective of today, we can easily find that many insights
proposed by the Gnostics and other heretics are more compatible
with the understanding of our scientific age than are the orthodox
dogma. These dogma have become an anachronism, out of touch with
the spirit of the age. In other words, the heretics were right,
and the orthodox church has always been reactionary, suppressive,
and an enemy of God and man.
The church's treatment of heretics proves
how afraid they were (and often still are) of the truth. It reminds
me of how political dissent is handled in Nigeria and elsewhere
today.
I must have missed something. Is the church
suppressing political dissidents in Nigeria, or is the church
quite often the object of such oppression?
I was referring to the governments in Nigeria
and elsewhere and their handling of political dissent. The church
no longer enjoys political power. None whatsoever.
While the church may have responded *at
times* in an errant fashion, nevertheless, there is nothing inherently
wrong with defending truth against error.
There is nothing wrong with defending truth
against error, but the church has been most busy doing the exact
opposite: Defending error against truth.
I think you would agree with me since you
are defending your view of truth against my own. And I assure
you, even though we disagree, I won't burn you at the stake,
and neither will the rest of orthodox Christendom. :)
That's because they no longer have that legal
option.
The doctrines of the early Christians you
refer to were also merely subjective experiences of alleged higher
worlds through supersensible knowledge. Just ask your fellow
WE critics, who concur wholeheartedly with this statement.
While skeptics on this list might not feel
that the supernatural experiences recorded in the New Testament
were veridical, the New Testament writers certainly believed
they were.
...and belief is subjective - *merely* subjective.
While they did have visions in the mind
which they believed were caused by God, these and other doctrines
were not merely subjective experiences of "higher worlds"
discerned through psychic development.
The New Testament authors believed their's
was a revealed religion with objective referents.
You're referring to the faith-religion that
the evangelists, and the apostle Paul, taught the uneducated
masses. But if this should have remained the essence of Christianity
forever, there would have been no critical, self-dependent thinking,
and subsequently no human freedom. There would only be blind
obedience to the decrees from a metaphysical dictator.
For example,
the early Christians believed that they had an experience with
a literal, physically resurrected Christ, not merely an esoteric,
subjective experience of an etheric body.
The latter is a totally superficial and uneducated
rendition of the anthroposophical approach to the Mystery of
Golgotha. There is talk of a physical body (resurrection body)
that should not be confused with the flesh and blood, the shell
around the physical "phantom." this is an extremely
difficult thing to understand, requiring a lot of study and deep
meditation. And it cannot be brushed aside and dismissed as a
wishy-washy, metaphysical etheric, "subjective" nonsense
kind of thing.
New Testament
scholars generally concede that this belief in a literal, physical
resurrection was responsible for the origin of the Christian
faith.
Rudolf Steiner says precisely the same thing.
Did you know that?
The reports of the physical and tangible
nature of the Resurrection body and the empty tomb narratives,
are at variance with the claim that at least this early Christian
doctrine was merely a "subjective experience of higher worlds
through supersensible knowledge." The only way one can arrive
at such a conclusion is to utilize an esoteric intepretation
of the texts while viewing them through an esoteric worldview.
You obviously have no knowledge or understanding
of anthroposophical Christology. You don't know what it has in
common with other varieties of the Christ-idea.
I certainly respect your rights to believe
and propogate whatever you want in a free society, however, false
representation must be pointed out.
Are you saying that my representation is
false? On what ground?
Yes. I have given examples above. If you'd
like other examples, I'd be happy to provide them to you off
list.I think the point of this list is not to answer, "Is
Anthroposophy compatible with orthodox Christianity?," but,
"Is Anthroposophy religious?," and if so, "Does
it belong in public education?"
You know that Christ said, "Let the little
chiuldren come to me, and don't hinder them, for theirs is the
Kingdom of God" (my paraphraze). But isn't that what you're
doing, chasing Christ out of the schools and away from the children?
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
[This
exchange continues through another thread]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"