About Bigotry
In this thread, I endeavored
to defend RS and Anthroposophy against the charges of racism
and Nazism, and to answer allegations that I am a brainwashed
cult-member of sorts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Waldorf education
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:56:09 -0800
The following was received through the PLANS
web site. Please excuse my delay in responding. I am posting
my response on waldorf-critics and sending it to Alex Minshew
via Peter Cole.
Dear Mr. Dugan,
Hello, my name is Alex Minshew. I am the
Student Body President at the Sacramento Waldorf School in Fair
Oaks, California which I have attended since I was four years
old. I am writing to you because I am somewhat concerned by your
opinion of Waldorf education.
When I found your site on the internet,
I was very surprised. I had no idea that there was such a strong
anti-Waldorf movement. I would like to offer you a first-hand
account of Waldorf education so that you can be clear on exactly
what you are spending so much energy fighting against. I am aware
that you have read several of Steiner's writings, but I hope
that I can offer you a fresh perspective. Although I have only
skimmed over your website, I have seen at least three major themes
of Waldorf education which you do not approve of. They are:
1) You fear that, because of Steiner's
writings which seem to be racist, Waldorf is breeding bigots.
No, I don't think Steiner's racism is taught
directly to students in the US, but you should see Toos Jeurissen's
paper about it being taught in Holland. The more one is committed
to Anthroposophy, the more one must accept Steiner's racist "evolution
of consciousness" through the "root races" and
"sub races." This affects teachers directly, as they
study Steiner, and many of his racist pronouncements are in the
books that teachers must study. This has been known to lead to
students being treated differently because of their racial backgrounds.
2) You fear that because of Steiner's personal
religious beliefs, Waldorf students are indoctrinated with his
anthroposphical beliefs.
Anthroposophy isn't just "Steiner's personal
religious beliefs." It's the foundation of everything in
Waldorf and the world-view of Waldorf teachers. Waldorf education
is designed to take over children's "soul development"
from their families.
3) You have some concern with the manner
in which science courses are taught in Waldorf schools.
You bet I do. First, the phony "Goethean
Science" "phenomenology" that is a cover for Anthroposophical
spiritualism; second, specific lessons in Steiner's pseudoscience
like his "threefold man" physiology.
If I have misrepresented your concerns
or blatently overlooked any, please let me know. However, I will
proceed to adress the first two of these concerns.
1: In all honesty, there is not very much
racial diversity in my school. The majority of the student body
is caucasion, and the best represented minority is, by far, Asian.
There are very few African-American students in the Sacramento
Waldorf School. However, this is absolutely not our choice. On
the other hand, there has been great public outcry from my community
for more racial diversity; a plea which is slowly being met.
I believe that there are several reasons that there are few African-American
students at my school. First, we must consider the environment.
In truth, the Sacramento Waldorf School is an accurate representation
of the surrounding community of Fair Oaks. There are very few
African-Americans in this suburb. Secondly, I believe that Public
Relations is a problem. Our school has not done very much advertising
in the city of Sacramento, which would attract more African-Americans.
Furthermore, when a Waldorf school was formed in the city, it
met with a great deal of conflict in the community there which
resulted in the shutting down of the Oak Park Waldorf School.
The program wasn't shut down, it was moved
to its own campus. PLANS gave the starting impetus to a very
active group of parents who put in a tremendous amount of work
to accomplish that. Among the principal objectors were recent
Asian immigrants who didn't find the idea of knitting and gardening
romantic; that's what they used to do in their villages. They
wanted their kids to learn computers and become Americans, not
medieval Europeans.
Lastly, I believe that it is simply a matter
of means. In our society today, African-Americans are at a severe
economical disadvantage due to lingering racial prejudices. The
Sacramento Waldorf school costs about 7,000 dollars a year. This
is not very appealing to an already economically disadvantaged
family.
2: Personally, I do not know what Steiner's
religious beliefs were. I have never read any of Steiner's writings,
in class or otherwise. As a matter of fact, Steiner said specifically
that his beliefs were not to be taught at a Waldorf school. I
have never had, and never will have, a class on Rudolph Steiner.
Furthermore, I once requested to learn about him, and my teacher
refused because it goes against the pedagogy which Steiner laid
out.
Didn't you find that a little strange? To
ask a question and be told you're not allowed to know?
Clearly, I have not been indoctrinated
by anthroposophy, or any other of Steiner's beliefs.
How can you be so sure of that?
As for the teaching of the Bible and Christianity,
there are courses on those topics. However, the very first thing
which I was told when those classes began was that the classes
were not intended as a class in religion. Instead, it was an
objective view of the way in which Christianity has affected
the world. It was merely another history course.
Really? Were your third grade Bible stories
and fourth grade Norse Mythology presented objectively?
When I entered into the ninth grade at
my school, I believed in God and was a somewhat devout Epsicopalion.
Going through the Waldorf education has opened my mind to countless
other possibilities. I took a course on India and learned of
Hinduism, Bhudism, and Jainism. I took a course on the Renaissance
and learned of Martin Luther and the Calvinists as well.
The list goes on. Since my freshman year,
my mind has opened to the world and others' beliefs. Now, I don't
know whether or not there is only one God, or whether I am going
to be reincarnated, or whether I am going to hell because I haven't
gone through Confirmation. But, if you have an idea, I'll certainly
listen.
Looks like Anthroposophy may have succeeded
in undermining your family's religion. BTW I don't think Confirmation
is required for salvation in the Episcopal church.
I read your article: "Are Rudolph
Steiner's Waldorf Schools 'Non-Sectarian'?". One thing caught
my interest especially. It was when you quoted Steiner saying
"Christ is a sun god come to earth". I don't know where
you got that from, but it is something I have never heard before.
In our history classes, my class had several heated debates on
who or what Christ really was, and nobody suggested that he was
a sun god.
Of course not. This is esoteric Anthroposophical
knowledge that they don't think you're ready to know.
I know that there are a lot of spiritual
teachings at Waldorf. I believe that this is what makes it so
incredible. It is a school for the development of the mind and
the spirit. Let me be clear: the teachers do not teach us how
to be spiritual beings, they simply present questions and, more
often than not, let the students carry the conversation in any
direction that they choose.
I will address the third concern at a later
time. I have not yet read your posted articles on science, so
I am in no place to respond. I do not know if I have accurately
represented all Waldorf schools, but I do believe that I have
given you at least some view into what my school is like.
I would like to finish by telling you what
I believe Waldorf has done for me. Waldorf has given me a safe
place in which to explore all of my academic endeavors to the
fullest. However, I believe that the most amazing thing Waldorf
has given me is the opportunity to explore my own humanity. I
have been given the unique opportunity to find out who I am and
what I will stand for before I have to actually bring that into
the world. I now have the confidence of knowing exactly who I
am and my place in the world. I know that I have the ability
to bring whatever change I wish into the world, and Waldorf has
allowed me to find out what unique thing it is that only I can,
and will, bring to the world.
I hope that your "confidence of knowing
exactly who I am and my place in the world" is based in
some semblance of reality.
Thank you for your time. Please feel free
to write me back with any questions or replies that you have.
You may post this e-mail on your site if you wish.
Sincerely,
Alex Minshew
Thank you for the dialogue, Alex. Would it
be possible for me to borrow your lesson books for a couple of
weeks? I'm sure they'd give us much to discuss.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:08:58 +0100
My fellow subscribers,
This post is partly a response to Dan Dugan's
correspondence with Waldorf teacher Alex Minshew. My experience
with Waldorf education is extremely limited, so I do not feel
competent to address some relevant issues under the title "Waldorf
education." But as I explained in my first post to the WC
list, I have been reading Rudolf Steiner for three decades. My
bookshelf covers only a third of his complete works however.
Take a look at this statement from Dan:
The more one is committed to Anthroposophy,
the more one must accept Steiner's racist "evolution of
consciousness" through the "root races" and "sub
races."
This caught my interest, because this is the
first topic that fascinated me when I began to read Anthroposophy
as a teenager. ("Our Atlantean Ancestors.") This obviously
means that I am a racist, or that my view of history and evolution
is racist. Fortunately, I have a solid reputation for the opposite
on the political left wing, being an anarchist and viewing Steiner
as such. I also happen to have quite a few close friends from
Africa here in Oslo, with whom I have discussed these issues,
and who do not share Dan's view about anthroposophists.
Here is another curiosity:
This is esoteric Anthroposophical knowledge
that they don't think you're ready to know.
Oh my. Who are "they" who would
discourage me, or any Waldorf teacher or Waldorf student for
that matter, from going to the library, or from buying or borrowing
the relevant anthroposophical literature, because we are "not
ready to know"? Really, Dan.
And now for the real bomb:
I hope that your "confidence of knowing
exactly who I am and my place in the world" is based in
some semblance of reality.
It is perhaps uncertain whether this condescending
and arrogant remark is aimed at Alex Minshew directly or at all
anthroposophists like myself, but it hangs in very thin air as
long as it is not backed up by a philosophically and epistemologically
convincing definition of reality.
Here is an edited cut from my comparison of
Anthroposophy and Scientology, which is available on my webpage
at http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html.
***********************************************************************
Is Theosophy racist?
Both Helena Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner endorsed
and elaborated Sanscrit lore. At a given time in its evolution,
the Earth was almost uninhabitable, and only the sturdiest pioneers
had descended. The rest of humanity used the other planets as
spiritual habitats before they also descended and incarnated
as the population increased. The continent where this took place
has been given the name Lemuria. The development of different
human races with distinct distinguishing physiological features,
was partially due to the differences of the planets which had
been inhabitated by the respective groups of souls in the spiritual
world, and which continued to be inhabited during sleep and between
death and rebirth.
This factor, combined with the strong influences
of climatic conditions upon the human physiology in earlier epochs,
contributed to the formation of the seven races of Atlantis,
which emerged after the destruction of Lemuria. According to
Rudolf Steiner, races as such (in the external, physiological
sense) have outlived their purpose since Atlantis, and the idea
of human races in our time is in reality atavistic and without
significance.
This is a very important point about anthroposophical
views concerning human evolution, because both Blavatsky and
Steiner have unwittingly been accused of racism. A major reason
for misconceptions of this kind is that in Theosophical terminology,
'Races' signify evolutionary epochs.
Our cosmic planetary evolution consists of
seven Planetary Conditions, which in Sanscrit are called Manvantaras.
We are now living in the fourth Manvantara, called Present Earth
Condition. This Manvantara is again divided into seven Rounds,
or Life Conditions. We are presently in the fourth Round, i.e.
the Present Mineral Kingdom, which consists of seven Globes,
or Conditions of Form. The fourth Condition of Form in which
we live, i.e. the Present Physical-Etheric State, consists of
seven Root-Races, or Great Epochs.
We are now living in the fifth Root-Race,
the third and fourth Root-Races being Lemuria and Atlantis. Each
Root-Race consists of seven Sub-Races, or Cultural Epochs. On
Atlantis, these Sub-Races or Epochs produced the seven human
races that later populated the continents of Africa, Europe,
Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.
The Sub-Races, or Cultural Epochs, of the
present fifth Root-Race have nothing to do with physiological
human races as such. They are:
1. The ancient Indian Epoch
2. The ancient Persian Epoch
3. The Assyrian-Babylonian-Chaldean-Egyptian
Epoch
4. The Graeco-Roman Epoch
5. The present European-American Epoch
Two future Cultural Epochs will follow before
the present Root-Race, or Great Epoch, has run its course.
According to Anthroposophy, the laws of reincarnation
and karma work in such a way that each individual will have varying
life-experiences in respect to social and economic status, gender,
culture, nationality, etc. in order for all people to reap every
imaginable kind of human experience. What this entails is that
we may have one life in Africa, another one in China, and the
next in America. This concept in itself may be far-fetched and
unacceptable to many readers, but it is certainly inimical to
racism of any kind.
The Nazis adopted the basic structure of Blavatsky's
concept of evolution, which they perverted beyond recognition.
They mixed it with Ariosophy and pronounced European Aryans to
be the master race of the earth, claiming that Nordic men had
founded every civilization that had ever existed on the face
of the planet. This 'Aryan Theosophy' which it was called, has
later prompted allegations of racism against Helena Blavatsky
and Rudolf Steiner.
Christian fundamentalists have taken deliberate
advantage of these misconceptions by portraying Blavatsky as
a Satanist whose evil philosophy prompted the Holocaust. Their
main reason for going after Blavatsky is her praise of Lucifer
at Jehovah's expense. Yet Rudolf Steiner makes a clear distinction
between Lucifer on the one hand, who gave man his wisdom, his
pride and his egoism, his independence and his freedom, and Ahriman
or Satan on the other, designated in the New Testament as the
Prince of this world, who gave man his intellect, his materialism
and his atheism. Ahriman is 'the liar and the father of lies,'
and the adversary of Christ, who is endeavoring to capture the
planet for himself by seducing man through his intellect.
**********************************************************************
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:04:58 -0700
In my (albeit superficial) three year exposure
to Anthroposophy one thing emerges most clearly; the spiritual
supremecy of the Christ. To Steiner, Christ is the one true and
highest expression of the spiritual, and the Jewish faith, the
Zoroastrian, the Hindu, the Moslim are all important, but incomplete
stepping stones leading up to the ultimate, the Christ. I am
not sure that the members of those faiths would care to be considered
in that way. When one begins to feel that his God is higher than
the next man's, bigotry is around the corner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:34:21 +0000
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
In my (albeit superficial) three year exposure to Anthroposophy
one thing emerges most clearly; the spiritual supremecy of the
Christ.
This is at odds with the claims of those critics
who claim that anthroposophy falsely claims a Christian basis.
What could be more Christian than believing the spiritual supremacy
of the Christ?
To Steiner, Christ is the one true and
highest expression of the spiritual, and the Jewish faith, the
Zoroastrian, the Hindu, the Moslim are all important, but incomplete
stepping stones leading up to the ultimate, the Christ.
Please can you cite where Steiner claimed
that Islam is a stepping-stone to the Christ. I've not come across
that one before and would be interested to read it.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:33:22 +1300
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
In my (albeit superficial) three year exposure
to Anthroposophy one thing emerges most clearly; the spiritual
supremecy of the Christ.
This is at odds with the claims of those
critics who claim that anthroposophy falsely claims a Christian
basis. What could be more Christian than believing the spiritual
supremacy of the Christ?
It would seem to a layman with deep agnosticism
bordering on atheism (I have neither seen, felt nor intuited
any evidence for god or anything supernatural) that the difference
is this:
"*the* Christ" and "the Sun
God" (my emphasis). I don't see Steiner saying that Christ
is Jesus, the divine son of God and the saviour of mankind.
Christian religions, on the other hand, do
not have anything in them about *"the"* Christ, or
Jesus Christ being a "sun god; and they are convinced that
Jesus was the divine son of God and saviour.
Not knowing what the dogma and rituals of
the "Christian Community" are, I can't say how Steiner's
and traditional Christianity's views of Christ fit with it.
When we were considering enrolling our children
in a "Steiner" school, we were told that the school
was "loosely centred in the Christianity", although
Anthroposophy and Christian observance were not to be found in
the classroom.
That satisfied us. When I later discovered
the depth of Steiner's weirdness (supernatural occultism), it
was that which precipitated our eventual departure from the school.
Steiner's views on "the Christ" were not particularly
of concern. However, the undeniable intrusion of Anthroposophy
into the curriculum was.
If we had been, say, devout Christians, and
accepted the assurances that the school was "loosely centred
on Christianity", and later discovered the truth of Steiner's
views of "the Christ", I think it is likely that we
would have been very angry at both the deception and the unorthodoxy
of Steiner's "Christianity".
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:55:21 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
It would seem to a layman with deep agnosticism
bordering on atheism (I have neither seen, felt nor intuited
any evidence for god or anything supernatural) that the difference
is this:
Steiner says Christ is "*the* Christ" and "the
Sun God" (my emphasis). I don't see Steiner saying that
Christ is Jesus, the divine son of God and the saviour of mankind.
You're on my turf now, Mr. Kopp. I have read
the entire Bible and studied Biblical, Christian, and Gospel-related
anthroposophical literature for over thirty years - including,
of course, all the Gospel-related RS lecture cycles. When you
"don't don't see Steiner saying that Christ is Jesus, the
divine son of God and the saviour of mankind," it's because
you have no interest in reading to find out - have you? For starters,
you might try a few "anthroposophical morsels" on my
website at
http://www.uncletaz.com/exoeso.html and
http://www.uncletaz.com/lovemeaning.html
Christian religions, on the other hand,
do not have anything in them about *"the"* Christ,
or Jesus Christ being a "sun god; and they are convinced
that Jesus was the divine son of God and saviour.
When you say "Christian religions"
in plural, you probably refer to various churches and sects.
Orthodox theology has not taught Christ to be a sun god, because
this was suppressed as heresy and was taught only in heretical,
backwood sects. But anthroposophists are not only cultural heretics,
but also theological heretics. Orthodox churches do not have
a monopoly on Christianity.
Not knowing what the dogma and rituals of the "Christian
Community" are, I can't say how Steiner's and traditional
Christianity's views of Christ fit with it.
If by "traditional Christianity"
you mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran churches, and
the various Protestant denominations like the Baptists, the Presbyterians,
the Pentacostals and so on, they don't fit with each other either.
The Catholoc Mariology is criticized by the Protestants. Now
the fact is that the Christian Community is not only Christian,
but also Buddhist. It is Christian Buddhism if you like, or Buddhist
Christianity. It is nevertheless Christian. If this does not
make sense to you, I suggest you read the RS lecture cycle on
the Luke Gospel.
When we were considering enrolling our children in a "Steiner"
school, we were told that the school was "loosely centred
in the Christianity", although Anthroposophy and Christian
observance were not to be found in the classroom.
That satisfied us. When I later discovered the depth of Steiner's
weirdness (supernatural occultism), it was that which precipitated
our eventual departure from the school. Steiner's views on "the
Christ" were not particularly of concern. However, the undeniable
intrusion of Anthroposophy into the curriculum was.
If we had been, say, devout Christians, and accepted the assurances
that the school was "loosely centred on Christianity",
and later discovered the truth of Steiner's views of "the
Christ", I think it is likely that we would have been very
angry at both the deception and the unorthodoxy of Steiner's
"Christianity".
Naturally. I guess the same kind of anger
led the church to burn heretics at the stake. As far as the deception
goes, we have secret excercises in professional deceit. When
you got wise to this, it is obvious that the Waldorf staff was
inadequately trained.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:33:15 +0100
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
In my (albeit superficial) three year exposure
to Anthroposophy one thing emerges most clearly; the spiritual
supremecy of the Christ. To Steiner, Christ is the one true and
highest expression of the spiritual, and the Jewish faith, the
Zoroastrian, the Hindu, the Moslim are all important, but incomplete
stepping stones leading up to the ultimate, the Christ. I am
not sure that the members of those faiths would care to be considered
in that way. When one begins to feel that his God is higher than
the next man's, bigotry is around the corner.
What you are saying here is that all Christians
in the world are bigots.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:55:21 -0700
Those Christians who do not question or at
least tone down some of the supremist aspects of their faith
can certainly run the risk of falling into bigotry. Not just
Christians, those segments of the Jewish population who rest
on the notion that Israel is a God given territory incurred the
accusation that "Zionism is Racism" a notion that is
as overstated, perhaps, as the one that Anthroposophy is Racism,
but an understandable reaction nonetheless.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: about bigotry
What you are saying here is that all Christians in the world
are bigots.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:01:45 -0700
Your comment is well noted. I got carried
away when I threw Muslim in. I am curious, however, about his
views toward Islam. I suspect that he may not give it much stature
at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Tonkin
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Please can you cite where Steiner claimed
that Islam is a stepping-stone to the Christ. I've not come across
that one before and would be interested to read it.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: bigoted logos and weirdos
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:52:52 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
Steiner says Christ is "*the* Christ"
and "the Sun God" (my emphasis). I don't see Steiner
saying that Christ is Jesus, the divine son of God and the saviour
of mankind.
Christian religions, on the other hand,
do not have anything in them about *"the"* Christ,
or Jesus Christ being a "sun god; and they are convinced
that Jesus was the divine son of God and saviour.
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
In my (albeit superficial) three year exposure
to Anthroposophy one thing emerges most clearly; the spiritual
supremecy of the Christ. To Steiner, Christ is the one true and
highest expression of the spiritual, and the Jewish faith, the
Zoroastrian, the Hindu, the Moslim are all important, but incomplete
stepping stones leading up to the ultimate, the Christ. I am
not sure that the members of those faiths would care to be considered
in that way. When one begins to feel that his God is higher than
the next man's, bigotry is around the corner.
Listen guys, you can't have it both ways.
Kopp says that anthroposphists don't recognize Christ as the
son of God and savior; Dr. Fine says that this recognition of
Christ makes them bigots.
The apostle John says that Christ is the logos
that created all things, and in whom we all move and have our
being. And the word became flesh and dwelt among men in the person
of Jesus Christ.
The sun is the giver of all life, and we are
all stardust. It is quite natural to identify Christ as the sun
god.
I said at the outset that we are weird, and
that we claim the right to have our own weird schools and our
own weird teachers for our own weird children - with weird science
and weird religion and weird arts - weird beliefs and opinions.
And I do agree that Waldorf schools should inform parents that
they are invited to be part of a weird community, and that being
educated into weirdos is the best for their children if they
concur. What is wrong with a weird civilization?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:53:07 +0000
Michael Kopp wrote:
Steiner says Christ is "*the* Christ"
and "the Sun God" (my emphasis). I don't see Steiner
saying that Christ is Jesus, the divine son of God and the saviour
of mankind.
Errrr no -- he says that Jesus is/was the
Christ. I'm only a "christenings, marriages and funerals"
churchgoer, so it's many years since I sat in a church (including
a CC one) for anything else, but I do seem to recall, in the
deep recesses of my memory, that the (high) Anglican church I
used to attend said the same thing.
As for the Sun God thing, the report I heard
on BBC World Service News this a.m., about the mosaic recently
uncovered in Thessaloniki, suggests that there is a bit of evidence
from the days of the early Christian church that the original
(or, at least, early) Christians indeed regarded the Christ in
this way. Perhaps it was the orthodox (note lower-case "o")
which rejected this view. Heresy?
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:57:04 +0100
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Those Christians who do not question or
at least tone down some of the supremist aspects of their faith
can certainly run the risk of falling into bigotry. Not just
Christians, those segments of the Jewish population who rest
on the notion that Israel is a God given territory incurred the
accusation that "Zionism is Racism" a notion that is
as overstated, perhaps, as the one that Anthroposophy is Racism,
but an understandable reaction nonetheless.
I think that a sense of elitism is a problem
with practically all religious and philosophical views. Many
atheists feel superior to non-atheists, because they know "the
truth" that all the others ignore in their state of illusion
about existence after death and so on.
The problem with elitism in anthroposophy
does not arise from the Christian aspect, but from the sophistication
of *spiritual knowledge* which may be viewed as " more advanced"
than religious faith and belief.
From an anthroposophical point of view, a
person is a Christian not defined by his religion or philosophy
of life as such, but by his ethos and his ability to see the
best in others, and the extent of his selfless love. And as believers
in reincarnation, we do not believe that Christians are better
off than non-Christians when they die, or in the next life. There
are Buddhist monks, by the way, who are members of the Anthroposophical
Society. Australian aborigines too. This is not a narro-minded,
sectarian type of Christianity, but as I said, there is a danger
in too much pride in knowledge. of being "an insider"
to the secrets of existence.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:54:58 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
Christian religions, on the other hand,
do not have anything in them about *"the"* Christ,
He says unto them, But whom say you that I
am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God. (Matthew 16:15-16)
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:00:32 -0800
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
Take a look at this statement from Dan:
The more one is committed to Anthroposophy,
the more one must accept Steiner's racist "evolution of
consciousness" through the "root races" and "sub
races."
This caught my interest, because this is
the first topic that fascinated me when I began to read Anthroposophy
as a teenager. ("Our Atlantean Ancestors.") This obviously
means that I am a racist, or that my view of history and evolution
is racist. Fortunately, I have a solid reputation for the opposite
on the political left wing, being an anarchist and viewing Steiner
as such. I also happen to have quite a few close friends from
Africa here in Oslo, with whom I have discussed these issues,
and who do not share Dan's view about anthroposophists.
The idea of Europeans being descended from
Atlanteans can be traced from Blavatsky and Steiner to Alfred
Rosenberg. This mythology formed part of the foundation of Nazi
racial mythology, as you admit below:
<snip long recitation of Anthroposophical
pseudo-history>
We are now living in the fifth Root-Race,
the third and fourth Root-Races being Lemuria and Atlantis. Each
Root-Race consists of seven Sub-Races, or Cultural Epochs. On
Atlantis, these Sub-Races or Epochs produced the seven human
races that later populated the continents of Africa, Europe,
Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.
The Sub-Races, or Cultural Epochs, of the present fifth Root-Race
have nothing to do with physiological human races as such.
Not according to Blavatsky, not according
to Steiner. Instead of denying the concept, why not just throw
the whole mess out?
P.S. there are no "physiological human
races," only local variations.
They are:
1. The ancient Indian Epoch
2. The ancient Persian Epoch
3. The Assyrian-Babylonian-Chaldean-Egyptian Epoch
4. The Graeco-Roman Epoch
5. The present European-American Epoch
Two future Cultural Epochs will follow before the present Root-Race,
or Great Epoch, has run its course.
According to Anthroposophy, the laws of reincarnation and karma
work in such a way that each individual will have varying life-experiences
in respect to social and economic status, gender, culture, nationality,
etc. in order for all people to reap every imaginable kind of
human experience. What this entails is that we may have one life
in Africa, another one in China, and the next in America. This
concept in itself may be far-fetched and unacceptable to many
readers, but it is certainly inimical to racism of any kind.
No it isn't, because the races are characterized
as more or less evolved.
The Nazis adopted the basic structure of
Blavatsky's concept of evolution, which they perverted beyond
recognition. They mixed it with Ariosophy and pronounced European
Aryans to be the master race of the earth, claiming that Nordic
men had founded every civilization that had ever existed on the
face of the planet. This 'Aryan Theosophy' which it was called,
has later prompted allegations of racism against Helena Blavatsky
and Rudolf Steiner.
And rightly so.
Christian fundamentalists have taken deliberate
advantage of these misconceptions by portraying Blavatsky as
a Satanist whose evil philosophy prompted the Holocaust. Their
main reason for going after Blavatsky is her praise of Lucifer
at Jehovah's expense. Yet Rudolf Steiner makes a clear distinction
between Lucifer on the one hand, who gave man his wisdom, his
pride and his egoism, his independence and his freedom, and Ahriman
or Satan on the other, designated in the New Testament as the
Prince of this world, who gave man his intellect, his materialism
and his atheism. Ahriman is 'the liar and the father of lies,'
and the adversary of Christ, who is endeavoring to capture the
planet for himself by seducing man through his intellect.
And you say Anthroposophy isn't a religion?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:57:17 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
The idea of Europeans being descended from
Atlanteans can be traced from Blavatsky and Steiner to Alfred
Rosenberg. This mythology formed part of the foundation of Nazi
racial mythology, as you admit below:
That makes as much sense as blaming Charles
Darwin for Nazism because he discovered biological evolution.
This is a conslusion drawn by many Christian fundamentalists.
Alfred Rosenberg read Helena Blavatsky and Ignatius Donnelly
and this literature into his Aryanized theosophy. Anthroposophy
was probably repugnant to him, because Rosenberg was the architect
of the plan to eradicate Christianity completely. He was hanged
for crimes against humanity in 1946, and it is preposterous to
lump him in the league with Steiner and Blavatsky.
What you are suggesting is that my view of
history originates from Alfred Rosenberg. I guess that makes
me a Nazi.
<snip long recitation of Anthroposophical pseudo-history>
We are now living in the fifth Root-Race,
the third and fourth Root-Races being Lemuria and Atlantis. Each
Root-Race consists of seven Sub-Races, or Cultural Epochs. On
Atlantis, these Sub-Races or Epochs produced the seven human
races that later populated the continents of Africa, Europe,
Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.
The Sub-Races, or Cultural Epochs, of the present fifth Root-Race
have nothing to do with physiological human races as such.
Not according to Blavatsky, not according
to Steiner. Instead of denying the concept, why not just throw
the whole mess out?
The point is this: The reason for the difference
in physiological characteristics among peoples today is that
they are the descendents of the seven subraces of Atlantis: The
Rmohals, the Tlavatli, the Toltecs, the Primal Turanials, the
Primal Semites, the Akkadians, and the Mongols. And I recall
very clearly a statement by Steiner, namely that humanity has
in reality outlived such racial differences, but that strife
arising from such conditions are stirred up by Ahriman whose
technique is to introduce forces belonging to bygone epochs.
P.S. there are no "physiological human races," only
local variations.
<snip>
According to Anthroposophy, the laws of
reincarnation and karma work in such a way that each individual
will have varying life-experiences in respect to social and economic
status, gender, culture, nationality, etc. in order for all people
to reap every imaginable kind of human experience. What this
entails is that we may have one life in Africa, another one in
China, and the next in America. This concept in itself may be
far-fetched and unacceptable to many readers, but it is certainly
inimical to racism of any kind.
No it isn't, because the races are characterized
as more or less evolved.
If the very desciption of races and their
evolution is racism, then we need to re-define what may be ascribed
to this word. Because I understand now that I am a racist. It
is slanderous bigotry to suggest that anthroposophists consider
one person "superior" to another by virtue of his race,
and it is outrageous to say that anthroposophists are perpetuating
the ideas of Alfred Rosenberg and Adolf Hitler.
The Nazis adopted the basic structure of
Blavatsky's concept of evolution, which they perverted beyond
recognition. They mixed it with Ariosophy and pronounced European
Aryans to be the master race of the earth, claiming that Nordic
men had founded every civilization that had ever existed on the
face of the planet. This 'Aryan Theosophy' which it was called,
has later prompted allegations of racism against Helena Blavatsky
and Rudolf Steiner.
And rightly so.
Your line of reasoning would turn all Christians
into Nazis too, because of the Aryanized Christianity of many
leading Nazis. Your logic is beginning to fascinate me.
And you say Anthroposophy isn't a religion?
Anthroposophy is a unity of art, science,
and religion.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:45:43 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
P.S. there are no "physiological human races," only
local variations.
What do you mean - local variations of what?
Please tell us about your theory of evolution what the origin
of human races is concerned.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:51:06 -0700
I respect the care with which you approach
the subject of how Anthroposophists posture themselves with regard
to other peoples. I do not feel that Anthroposophy per se or
today's Anthroposophists are intrinsicly racist. However, several
websights provide ample documentation of the fact that Steiner
himself was a racist and an Aryan supremicist. I hope today's
Anthroposophists (most of whom in my view are far better human
beings than Steiner) have enough autonomy to challenge those
aspects of Steiner's views and to form Anthroposophy into something
more enlightened.
--Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Those Christians who do not question or
at least tone down some of the supremist aspects of their faith
can certainly run the risk of falling into bigotry. Not just
Christians, those segments of the Jewish population who rest
on the notion that Israel is a God given territory incurred the
accusation that "Zionism is Racism" a notion that is
as overstated, perhaps, as the one that Anthroposophy is Racism,
but an understandable reaction nonetheless.
I think that a sense of elitism is a problem
with practically all religious and philosophical views. Many
atheists feel superior to non-atheists, because they know "the
truth" that all the others ignore in their state of illusion
about existence after death and so on.
The problem with elitism in anthroposophy does not arise from
the Christian aspect, but from the sophistication of *spiritual
knowledge* which may be viewed as " more advanced"
than religious faith and belief.
From an anthroposophical point of view, a person is a Christian
not defined by his religion or philosophy of life as such, but
by his ethos and his ability to see the best in others, and the
extent of his selfless love. And as believers in reincarnation,
we do not believe that Christians are better off than non-Christians
when they die, or in the next life. There are Buddhist monks,
by the way, who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.
Australian aborigines too. This is not a narro-minded, sectarian
type of Christianity, but as I said, there is a danger in too
much pride in knowledge. of being "an insider" to the
secrets of existence.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: about bigotry
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:20:06 -0500
On Friday, February 12, 1999 5:01 AM, Dan
Dugan wrote:
The idea of Europeans being descended from Atlanteans can be
traced from Blavatsky and Steiner to Alfred Rosenberg. This mythology
formed part of the foundation of Nazi racial mythology, as you
admit below:
There you go again with the alleged Nazi connection,
Dan.
It was not only the Europeans that were supposed
to have descended from the Atlanteans, but also the Egyptians
and the great Native American civilizations and I forget who
else. The Nazis selectively chose from the Atlantean/Theosophical
history/mythology to support their aims. Will you please, once
and for all, come down off this Nazi soapbox?
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:37:47 +0100
Alan S. Fine wrote:
I respect the care with which you approach
the subject of how Anthroposophists posture themselves with regard
to other peoples. I do not feel that Anthroposophy per se or
today's Anthroposophists are intrinsicly racist. However, several
websights provide ample documentation of the fact that Steiner
himself was a racist and an Aryan supremicist. I hope today's
Anthroposophists (most of whom in my view are far better human
beings than Steiner) have enough autonomy to challenge those
aspects of Steiner's views and to form Anthroposophy into something
more enlightened.
As far as I am concerned, Rudolf Steiner's
scientific notions are fair game and should be subject to all
possible rational and objective criticism. And his art - the
architecture, the eurythmy, the mystery plays and so on - may
be a matter of personal taste. Many people who don't like Ibsen
or Shakespeare, enjoy Strindberg and Brecht and Beckett. And
many fine Christian theologians find it difficult to swallow
a Christianity that embraces Buddhism and paganism. In every
field of research and knowledge and wisdom, Steiner's contributions
may be dismissed as outdated, off target, or erroneous or what
have you. That is really beside the point I will endeavor to
put across, because it is not the brilliance or the unusual gifts
of this man that has kept me fascinated with him for over thirty
years; neither is it the sensational or fantastic aspect of his
access to uncharted territory in the spiritual realm. All of
this is secondary to the integrity of his personal character
and his lofty code of ethics which he did not preach for others,
but practiced himself. This has always bee the prime reason for
my tremendous interest in Rudolf Steiner and his ideas.
If it is true that Steiner was a racist and
an Aryan supremacist and that today's anthroposophists are far
better human beings than he was, I must confess to you all that
I have been brainwashed, hypnotized, and deceived by this sleazy
and sinister cult. If that proves to be the case, I will call
exit counseller Dr. Paul Martin immediately. The alternative
is for me to recognize that I am a Nazi at heart after all. I
am Aryan and euro-centric, and I have always viewed evolution
and ancient history in the light of Blavatsky and Steiner and
various holy scriptures, including the Indian Vedas. So I'm a
Nazi and an Aryan supremacist like most anthroposophists, except
those who Alan says are "far better human beings than Steiner"
- a group I have never heard of and most certainly do not belong
to.
I'll have a problem with seeking membership
in neo-Nazi, white supremacist organizations though, for a variety
of reasons. Norwegian anthroposophists have always had a voting
record that favors the political left, and a few years ago, all
leftist organizations, including newpapers and magazines, were
targeted by the extreme right as enemies. There were meetings
held to discuss how to handle various threats. As writer, co-publisher,
and chairman of the board for a long established anarchist magazine,
I am as far to the left as you can get, and that makes me a prime
enemy in the eyes of the fascist-racists, who call themselves
nationalists. so I don't think it would be too healthy for me
to try to approach them. Besides, my family isn't entirely Aryan,
because my wife's sons are half Tibetan. Had they only been Iranian,
I might be able to explain that Iranians are also Aryans just
like us, but Tibetans have that Oriental look, so I'll probably
be required to disconnect from my family. I understand of course
that I belong Nazis, thanks to the insights of Dan Dugan and
Alan Fine.
Another problem is that if my new Nazi friends
do a little historical research - a skill they handle about as
efficiently as some of the critics on this list - they'll discover
some disturbing things about Rudolf Steiner. The whole thing
began in 1919, when some anthroposophists approached Dietrich
Eckart to get him interested in Steiner's Threefold Social Order.
After all, Eckart was a Christian mystic with possible political
clout. What they didn't know was that Eckart was a man full of
hate, especially against Jews, and the publisher of his own nationalist
magazine "Auf gut Deutsch."
What these anthroposophists did by approaching
Eckart and make him aware of what they stood for, was to stick
their hands into a hornet's nest and bring irreparable damage
on their own cause. In "Auf gut Deutsch," Eckart started
an ugly smear campaign against Rudolf Steiner - not with the
same content as the PLANS website, but in the same spirit. The
hostility and the coldness that Steiner encountered later when
he tried to present his socio-political ideas had its source
in the activities of Eckart and his agitators. In two attacks
in "Auf gut Deutsch" in July and December 1919, Eckart
created a style that characterized all subsequent polemics against
the anthroposophists. He insisted that Steiner was a Jew from
Spain and that his organization was based upon love of money
and megalomania. Eckart published long sections from a brochure
by the Russian-German Max Seiling, who claimed that Steiner was
using sexual magic, and he repeated the allegations that had
been the cause of the first attacks against Steiner during the
world war. These charges were that when Steiner had met general
Helmuth von Molkte immediately prior to the battle of Marne in
1914, he had hypnotized his sympathiser to military ineptitude.
In this way, Steiner was not only portrayed as a traitor to Germany,
but also as an agent for the Jewish-Freemason-Communist conspiracy.
In his attacks, Eckart showed his thorough knowledge of occultism,
and of internal theosophical-political affairs in particular.
In this way he succeeded in stirring up the people's rage against
Rudolf Steiner.
The opposition to Rudolf Steiner in Europe
was very well organized, and it was part and parcel of the fascist
movement. In a leading article, 14 September, 1922, "The
Patriot," a British fascist newspaper, warned its readers
against "The Subterranean War":
"I may refer briefly
to the existence of an offshoot of the Theosophical Society,
known as the Anthroposophical Society. This was formed as the
result of a chism in the ranks of the Theosophists, by a man
of Jewish birth who was connected with one of the modern branches
of the Carbonari. Not only so, but in association with another
Theosophist he is engaged in organising certain commercial undertakings
not unconnected with Communist propaganda; almost precisely in
the manner in which 'Count St. Germain' organised his dyeworks
and other commercial ventures with a like purpose. And this queer
business group has its connections with the Irish Republican
movement... and also with another mysterious group which was
founded by Jewish 'intellectuals' in France about four years
ago (about 1918), and which includes in its membership many well-known
politicians, scientists, university professors, and literary
men in France, Germany, and England, It is a secret society...
although nominally a 'Right Wing' society, it is in direct touch
with members of the Soviet Government Russia..."
This was printed on pamphlets that were distributed
all over Europe. The opposition and the hatred against Rudolf
Steiner was extremely fierce, and on New Year's Eve 1922, the
Goetheanum, which he had built and carved with his own hands
together with the workers, was arsoned and burned to the ground.
This contributed undoubtedly to shorten Steiner's life, because
his formerly youthful movements became heavy, and everything
he did cost him visible effort. Exactly one year later, on January
1, 1924, Rudolf Steiner was poisoned. It did not kill him immediately
as intended, but it probably brought on the disease that made
it impossible for him to digest food, and that took his life
in Mars, 1925.
When Steiner was poisoned, he told his closest
associates who became aware of it, not to tell anyone, because
he was certain that only he and nobody else was in danger. And
the year before, after the fire that destroyed his life's work,
he had told his workers that no attempt should be made to apprehend
the arsonist, and the police should not be involved. At heart,
Rudolf Steiner was a Tolstoian christian anarchist who practiced
turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. The nature
of these qualities can be glimpsed in the two portraits I have
posted on my website at
http://www.uncletaz.com/belyi.html
and at
http://www.uncletaz.com/zeylman.html
You may call Rudolf Steiner a dreamer, a pseudo-scientist,
a pseudo-artist, and a pseudo-Christian. But he had a love for
all creatures that cannot be denied.
Someone who had been present at the East-West
Congress inVienna June 1-12 1922, and who was not himself an
anthroposophist, said of Steiner: "I was facing an old man,
an old peasant from Niederösterreich... who had worked himself
to death in the field and who now stood withered and exhausted
before me, a good, good man who had staked it all and given everything
he possessed."
Most anthroposophists of today are not better
human beings than Steiner. If that were true, they would all
be fools to love and admire a person lesser than themselves.
That is contradictory to plain logic. A slanderous website is
an extremely inadequate basis on which to judge a character like
Rudolf Steiner. But it's obviously working, just like it did
for the fascists. And I must admire the feat of transforming
a communist Jew to an anti-semitic fascist. That's really clever.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:11:10 -0700
The offence that you have taken to the implication
that you might actually be a better person than Steiner, is a
powerful reflection of the state of mind of a cultist in relationship
to a guru. It is reactions like these that prompt outsiders like
me to see Anthroposophy as cult after all.
Incidently, I did not say that Steiner was
a Nazi, and I certainly do not believe that. I do believe he
was a racist, in that he promoted the notion that inherent differences
among the various human races determine cultural and spiritual
achievement, and that he seems to place his own race at the top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:27:40 +0100
Alan S. Fine wrote:
The offence that you have taken to the
implication that you might actually be a better person than Steiner,
is a powerful reflection of the state of mind of a cultist in
relationship to a guru.
I do not share your view that deep respect
and high regard for a person is symptomatic of a pathological
or undesirable state of mind.
It is reactions like these that prompt
outsiders like me to see Anthroposophy as cult after all.
As I have pointed out, the religious aspect
of anthroposophy is striving in the direction of a new cult (meaning
communion with the spiritual world). I don't think that is undesirable
or pathological either.
Incidently, I did not say that Steiner was a Nazi, and I certainly
do not believe that. I do believe he was a racist, in that he
promoted the notion that inherent differences among the various
human races determine cultural and spiritual achievement, and
that he seems to place his own race at the top.
My post was prompted not only by you, but
also by Dan Dugan, who suggested that the anthroposophical view
of evolution and history originates from Alfred Rosenberg, one
of the very worst of the leading Nazis.
Your conclusions about Rudolf Steiner are
based upon extremely superficial and limited information that
give a false and biased picture. And I certainly don't see how
my reaction against this false picture may be construed as symptomatic
of a pathological or undesirable state of mind.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt"
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:23:21 -0500
Dear Bob,
I have to admit I am of two minds with Dan's
Nazi/Steiner obsession. I admit to agreeing with PLANS about
much of their criticism of Waldorf teacher training, and as regards
to the error in wanting Waldorf as a part of public education.
Because of this, I want PLANS to be successful.
Yet, if I were a lawyer defending in a lawsuit
in which PLANS was a party, I would love to get Dan on the stand
and have him expose his Nazi thinking, because it would clearly
make him a less then credible witness.
Perhaps one day this very scenario will be
played out.
warm regards,
joel
Tolz, Robert wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 1999 5:01 AM, Dan
Dugan wrote:
The idea of Europeans being descended from
Atlanteans can be traced from Blavatsky and Steiner to Alfred
Rosenberg. This mythology formed part of the foundation of Nazi
racial mythology, as you admit below:
There you go again with the alleged Nazi
connection, Dan.
It was not only the Europeans that were supposed to have descended
from the Atlanteans, but also the Egyptians and the great Native
American civilizations and I forget who else. The Nazis selectively
chose from the Atlantean/Theosophical history/mythology to support
their aims. Will you please, once and for all, come down off
this Nazi soapbox?
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: about bigotry
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:02:57 -0500
On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 11:23 AM, Joel
A. Wendt wrote:
Dear Bob,
I have to admit I am of two minds with Dan's Nazi/Steiner obsession.
I admit to agreeing with PLANS about much of their criticism
of Waldorf teacher training, and as regards to the error in wanting
Waldorf as a part of public education. Because of this, I want
PLANS to be successful.
Yet, if I were a lawyer defending in a lawsuit in which PLANS
was a party, I would love to get Dan on the stand and have him
expose his Nazi thinking, because it would clearly make him a
less then credible witness.
Perhaps one day this very scenario will be played out.
warm regards,
joel
I've got to agree with every word you've said.
[Personal off-list remarks
snipped by the editor.]
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"