Defining Religion
Cult victim recovery expert
Alan S. Fine MD believes that reverence is a dangerous thing.
Sarah almost gives the impression of wondering if her own branch
of traditional Judaism needs to be defended against the critics
alongside anthroposophy. The critics seem to be angry about anthroposophy
being a religion, and confused about it being much more than
a mere religion, and perhaps even a science. And Michael Kopp
tries to explain what he means by "mumbo jumbo."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah Stein
Subject: defining religion
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:36:31 -0500
I came across this assertion on a web site
the other day (I think it was Rick Ross' cult awareness site):
"Only recognized Jewish authorities have
the right to decide the parameters of Jewish identity."
If I'm remembering correctly (I should double-check),
this was Rick Ross speaking in reaction to Christian "Messianic
Jews" (Jews for Jesus, et al) who assert that they are,
indeed, Jewish.
His statement would seem to imply that there
is some authentic, original definition of Judaism that supersedes
subsequent interpretations. And, that there is such a thing as
"recognized authorities" within a particular religion
who set the standards.
This makes sense to me in terms of Judaism
-- where "progressive" branches have altered their
definition of Judaism to the point where it bears little resemblance
to the original (i.e., no belief in G-d, no kashrus, little Shabbat
observance, no blessings before or after eating, no moral standards
in dating/marriage, etc.), and so would seem to have forfeited
their eligibility to be "authorities," except in their
new brand of religion (which probably should have a new name,
avoiding the confusing use of the traditional terms "Judaism,"
"Rabbi," etc).
Does this also have any bearing on the discussion
of (a) Orthodox vs. esoteric Christianity,
or (b) the question of whether Anthroposophy is a religion?
Just wondering.
Sarah
*****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:33:35
At 11:36 PM 4/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
I came across this assertion on a web site
the other day (I think it was Rick Ross' cult awareness site):
"Only recognized Jewish authorities have the right to decide
the parameters of Jewish identity."
[snip]
Does this also have any bearing on the
discussion of (a) Orthodox vs. esoteric
Christianity, or (b) the question of whether Anthroposophy
is a religion?
I have tried to avoid the idea that only those
within a given religious tradition can put forward the only authoritative
definition for that religion. Granted, we should take into account
the self-perceptions and self-definitions of adherents of a particular
religious tradition, but other factors must be considered as
well.
I have put forward definitions by primarily
secular scholars of religion to help define the word "religion"
itself, rather than providing an evangelical or orthodox Christian
definition, to avoid charges of bias.
As I understand it at this point, we have
a few definitions put forward, some resistence to these definitions
has been offered, as well as examples of scholarly reference
works on religion which include Anthroposophy as a religion,
specifically within the Western esoteric tradition.I don't believe
it has been demonstrated that anthroposophy does not meet these
definitions and is not worthy of inclusion in these reference
works. Perhaps we have settled on plank in the Waldorf critics
argument, namely that anthroposophy is religious? Can we then
move on to discussion of whether anthroposophy is the basis for
Waldorf education, or found within it?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah
Stein
Subject: Re: Defining religion
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:56:49 -0500
In the interest of preventing any misconceptions
of my recent statements about "classifying" Jews, I
am posting this excerpt from an exchange that took place via
private e-mail:
In response to my comment:
This makes sense to me in terms of Judaism
-- where "progressive" branches have altered their
definition of Judaism to the point where it bears little resemblance
to the original (i.e., no belief in G-d, no kashrus, little Shabbat
observance, no blessings before or after eating, no moral standards
in dating/marriage, etc.), and so would seem to have forfeited
their eligibility to be "authorities," except in their
new brand of religion (which probably should have a new name,
avoiding the confusing use of the traditional
...I was asked:
You seem to be implying that one is not
Jewish unless one believes in God and follows Jewish customs.
No! G-d forbid! Please understand, there is
a *big* difference between an individual *being Jewish* and a
whole *movement* calling itself *Judaism* when it deviates substantially
from very basic Jewish ideas.
To make this absolutely clear (I hope): a
person who calls himself a "Reform Jew" is a Jew and
will always be a Jew, no matter where on the continuum of Jewish
practice he places himself now or in the future. The problem
is with the Reform *movement* -- specifically its originators,
and now its "Rabbis" -- who educate Jews with half-truths
and omissions about their true heritage, which is, in my opinion,
a form of "false advertising." How can a kid who grows
up Reform decide if he wants to keep kosher, if kashruth is never
presented to him as a viable option (if it is presented at all)?
In other words, my opinion is that someone
who calls himself "Reform" is indeed a Jew if he was
born Jewish, but what he is practicing is something other than
Judaism.
I would make the same statement about the
Conservative movement, which, as I mentioned, is the venue in
which I grew up. My education was intellectually stimulating
(if hyprocritical), spiritually fairly vacant, and ultimately
confusing. But these are my criticisms of the *leadership* of
these movements, who are, in my opinion, preventing people from
making their own decisions by editing out the parts of Judaism
that the *movement* has already decided are "irrelevant"
to modern Jews.
But in another post, you said:
My opinion is that a Jew is a Jew, regardless
of whether he or she is completely Torah-observant or utterly
atheistic, or apathetic, or assimilated, or simply ignorant (no
value judgment intended).
Now you can understand that there is no contradiction
in my statements, I hope?
Thanks,
Sarah
*****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:30:57 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
As I understand it at this point, we have
a few definitions put forward, some resistence to these definitions
has been offered, as well as examples of scholarly reference
works on religion which include Anthroposophy as a religion,
specifically within the Western esoteric tradition.I don't believe
it has been demonstrated that anthroposophy does not meet these
definitions and is not worthy of inclusion in these reference
works. Perhaps we have settled on plank in the Waldorf critics
argument, namely that anthroposophy is religious? Can we then
move on to discussion of whether anthroposophy is the basis for
Waldorf education, or found within it?
I wouldn't exactly say that the plank has
settled, except to say that there's a disagreement.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:05:00 -0600
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
Alan S. Fine MD
Perhaps we have settled on plank in the
Waldorf critics argument, namely that anthroposophy is religious?
Can we then move on to discussion of whether anthroposophy is
the basis for Waldorf education, or found within it?
I wouldn't exactly say that the plank has
settled, except to say that there's a disagreement.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:35:12 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan S. Fine MD [mailto:asf@peakpeak.com]
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
Have you ever noticed Michael Kopp's reaction
when challenged?
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:40:10 +0200
Alan S. Fine wrote:
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
Reverence is, I think, a healthy quality.
It does not per definition denote religion, however.
I agree that anthroposophy is of a religious
nature, and that the crucial question for those concerned with
American public schools is whether or not Waldorf education is
also religious. But the point is that reverence is healthy, and
religious reverence is not to be frowned upon either, though
the two are not synonymous.
Religion is healthy too. It's good for your
soul, good for your health, good for your children. And nothing
beats Steiner-inspired religion. It's the cream of the crop,
and the shape of things to come.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:43:30 -0700
On 16 Apr 99, at 8:05, Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
I've thought of that, too, but I've found
it's not a very helpful indicator. For example, I bristle when
people talk about Deadheads in derogatory terms, but my appreciation
for the music of the Grateful Dead is hardly a religion (although
I will admit to having experienced the spiritual aspects of Dead
concerts - I'd elaborate on that, but it's off-topic). Sports
fans sometimes react the same way when others assert that their
favorite sport is stupid or pointless.
People tend to react strongly whenever anything
with which they identify is challenged, whether it's their religion,
their politics, their nationality, or their taste in music.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:28:20 EDT
In einer eMail vom 16.04.99 16:28:50 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
Alan S. Fine MD:
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
POPPYCOCK! <ggg>
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:15:02 +1200
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan S. Fine MD
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy is a religion
is the reverence which its adherents attach to their beliefs
and their reaction when they are challenged.
Have you ever noticed Michael Kopp's reaction
when challenged?
Bob Tolz
Of what "religion" am I an "adherent"?
To what do I show "reverence"?
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 19:02:38 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: defining religion
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan S. Fine MD
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
Have you ever noticed Michael Kopp's reaction
when challenged?
Bob Tolz
Of what "religion" am I an "adherent"?
To what do I show "reverence"?
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
Precisely my point, Michael! Your lack of
reverence or adherence illustrates my point that Alan Fine has
made an illogical statement.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: RE:defining religion
Date: 18 Apr 1999 11:07:02 -0400
Alan posted,
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
Alan,
Could you tell us what you consider to be
the beliefs of its adherents? Please, make a distinction betwen
what you feel are the universal beliefs (shared by all) and which
may be particular to some or many (in your estimation). I don't
think I will ask for some sort of physical evidence for your
opinion, but can you tell us from what size of sample you would
be making these distinctions? (the people around Denver, this
list,...what?)
Secondly, I am unclear to your use of "reverence"
(outside from the thinking that (for me) it adds more "religiousy'
sounding words to a post). Do you think that people who are involved
in groups that are serious about child nutrition or saving trees
or bowling (for example) are in religious organizations. What,
IYO, makes Anthroposophy different or moves one, in any group,
across a threshold from "serious" to "religious"?
Luke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:22:42 +0200
Alan S. Fine wrote:
To me the strongest indicator that Anthroposophy
is a religion is the reverence which its adherents attach to
their beliefs and their reaction when they are challenged.
Bob Tolz wrote:
Have you ever noticed Michael Kopp's reaction
when challenged?
Michael Kopp wrote:
Of what "religion" am I an "adherent"?
To what do I show "reverence"?
Bob Tolz wrote:
Precisely my point, Michael! Your lack
of reverence or adherence illustrates my point that Alan Fine
has made an illogical statement.
Luke Schelly wrote:
Alan,
Could you tell us what you consider to
be the beliefs of its adherents? Please, make a distinction betwen
what you feel are the universal beliefs (shared by all) and which
may be particular to some or many (in your estimation). I don't
think I will ask for some sort of physical evidence for your
opinion, but can you tell us from what size of sample you would
be making these distinctions? (the people around Denver, this
list,...what?)
Secondly, I am unclear to your use of "reverence"
(outside from the thinking that (for me) it adds more "religiousy'
sounding words to a post). Do you think that people who are involved
in groups that are serious about child nutrition or saving trees
or bowling (for example) are in religious organizations. What,
IYO, makes Anthroposophy different or moves one, in any group,
across a threshold from "serious" to "religious"?
Uncle Taz saith:
In order to dismiss the suspicion voiced by
Dan Dugan that I am afraid to quote the Master of Truth ("Afraid to quote the master
now, Tarjei?"), this may be an appropriate occasion
to ask Saint Rudy what reverence, devotion, respect, and veneration
is. So that's what I did: I asked the Master of Truth St. Rudy
what he had on his mind about the subject. He suggested that
I looked up a certain passage in KOHW. I told my beloved guru
that the excerpt would be too long and that Dan Dugan would hit
the ceiling if I posted it. St. Rudy said, "So let him hit
the ceiling then."
If the length of the following excerpt is
inappropriate, there are four reasons why I have not made it
any shorter:
1) Short quotes by Rudolf Steiner are invariably
twisted and abused by WE Critics. In a hostile environment one
cannot do him justice without quoting him *in full*. Because
nobody has been subjected to more ad hominems on this list than
St. Rudy, he deserves a fair chance to defend his views.
2) The topic at hand also touches upon something
that has been discussed in connection with Waldorf education,
namely: What is critical thinking, and when and how is it appropriate
for children to develop it?
3) If St. Rudy were alive today and was challenged
to answer the the charges of cultism and uncritical, unthinking
acceptance of his teachings and so on, I believe the following
text illustrates quite clearly how he would have responded.
4) If this post is cluttering up too much
space on anybody's harddisk, I have three suggestions:
a) zip disks
b) cd burner
c) delete, or trash
(Personally, I use all of the above. But if
your harddisk is too small, get a new one with a 10 GB capacity.)
In "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds -
How is it achieved?" der Doctor hat gesagt:
"A certain fundamental
attitude of the soul must be the starting-point. The spiritual
investigator calls this fundamental attitude the *path of veneration*,
of devotion to truth and knowledge. Without this fundamental
attitude no one can become an occult pupil. Anyone who is experienced
in this domain knows what aptitudes are shown already in their
childhood by those who later on become occult pupils. There are
children who look up with reverent awe to certain venerated persons.
Their reverence for these people forbids them, even in the deepest
depths of their hearts, to admit any thought of criticism or
opposition. Such children grow up into young men and women who
feel happy when they are able to look up to anything that fills
them with veneration. Many occult pupils come from the ranks
of such children. If you have ever stood outside the door of
some revered person and on this your first visit had a feeling
of awe as you have pressed the door-handle to enter the room,
which for you was a holy place, a feeling has come to expression
within you which may be the seed of your later discipleship.
It is a blessing for every maturing human being to have such
feelings as foundations within him. But it must not be thought
that this will lead to submissiveness and servility. What was
once childlike veneration for persons becomes, later on, a veneration
for truth and knowledge. Experience teaches that those of free
bearing are those who have learnt to venerate where veneration
is due; and veneration is due whenever it springs from the depths
of the heart.
"If we do not develop
within ourselves the deeply rooted feeling that there is something
higher than ourselves, we shall never find the strength to evolve
to a higher stage, The initiate has acquired the strength to
lift his head to the heights of knowledge only by guiding his
heart to the depths of veneration and devotion. The heights of
the Spirit can be scaled only by passing through the gateway
of humility. You can acquire true knowledge only when you have
learnt to respect it. Man has certainly the right to turn his
eyes to the light but he must first earn this right. There are
laws in the spiritual life just as there are in material life.
Rub a glass rod with an appropriate substance and it becomes
electrified, that is, it acquires the power to attract small
objects. This is a law of Nature, known to everyone who has learnt
a little physics. Similarly, acquaintance with the elementary
rudiments of Spiritual Science brings the realisation that every
feeling of *true* devotion harbored in the soul develops a power
which leads sooner or later to a further stage of knowledge.
"Whoever has within
him feelings of true devotion, or who is fortunate enough to
have them inculcated by a fitting education, brings a great deal
with him when, later in life, he will encounter difficulties
at the very first step, unless he undertakes by rigorous self-education
to engender within himself this attitude of devotion. In our
time it is of the utmost importance that full attention be paid
to this. Our civilisation tends more to criticism, judgement,
condemnation, than to devotion and selfless veneration. Our children
already criticise far more than they revere. But every criticism,
every adverse judgement passed, dispels the powers of the soul
for the attainment of higher knowledge, just as reverent veneration
develops these powers. This is not meant to imply anything against
our civilisation. There is no question here of levelling criticism
against it. To this critical faculty, this conscious sense of
human judgement, this principle of 'prove all things and hold
fast what is best' we owe the greatness of our culture. Man could
never have developed the science, industry, commerce, civil rights,
of our time if he had not everywhere exercised his critical faculty
and applied the standards of his judgement. But what we have
thereby gained in the way of external culture, we have had to
pay for with a corresponding forfeiture of higher knowledge,
of spiritual life. It must be emphasised that in the domain of
higher knowledge it is *not* a matter of venerating persons,
but of venerating knowledge and truth.
"We must clearly recognise,
of course, that for an individual wholly involved in the externalised
civilisation of our day it is very difficult to attain knowledge
of the higher worlds. He can do so only if he works energetically
on himself. In times when the conditions of material life were
simple, the attainment of spiritual knowledge was easier. Whatever
was worthy of veneration and reverence stood out in stronger
relief from the things of the everyday world. In an epoch where
criticism is universal, ideals are lowered. Other feelings take
the place of veneration, reverence, worship and wonder. Our age
thrusts these feelings more and more into the background, so
that in everyday life they play a very small part. Whoever seeks
higher knowledge must bring them to life in himself. He must
himself instil them into his soul. This cannot be done through
study; it can be done only through living. Whoever wishes to
become a pupil of higher knowledge must therefore assiduously
cultivate this attitude of devotion. Everywhere in his environment
and in his experience he must look for whatever can capture his
admirations and respect. If I encounter a human being and blame
him for his weaknesses, I rob myself of the power of higher knowledge;
but if I try to enter lovingly into his qualities, I muster this
power. The pupil must bear this advice constantly in mind. Experienced
spiritual investigators know how much power they owe to the circumstance
that ever and again they look for the good in all things and
withold critical judgement. But this must not remain an external
rule of life; it must lay hold of our inmost soul. Man has it
in his power to perfect himself and as time goes on completely
to transform himself. But this transformation must take place
in his inmost self, in his life of thought. It is not enough
that I show respect to a person in my outward bearing; I must
have this respect in my thoughts. The pupil must begin by bringing
this devotion into his life of thought. He must be wary of thoughts
of disrespect, of adverse criticism, and must endavor straightway
to cultivate thoughts of reverence.
"Every moment that
we set ourselves to discover whatever remains in our consciousness
in the way of adverse, critical judgements of the world and of
life - every such moment brings us nearer to higher knowledge.
And we make rapid progress when in such moments we fill our consciousness
with thoughts that imbue us with wonder, respect and veneration
for the world and for life. Those experienced in these matters
know that in every such moment powers are awakened which otherwise
remain dormant. Thereby the spiritual eyes of man are opened.
He begins to see things around him which formerly he had been
unable to see. He begins to realise that hitherto he had seen
only a part of the world. A human being standing before him now
wears a quite different aspect. Certainly, this rule of life
will not enable him to see what is described as the human aura.
A still higher training is necessary for that. But he can fit
himself for this higher training if he has previously undergone
an unflagging training in devotional reverence.
"The treading of the
path of knowledge by the pupil takes place silently, unnoticed
by the outer world. No change need be noticed in him. He performs
his duties and attends to his business as before. The transformation
proceeds entirely in the inner recesses of the soul, hidden from
outer sight. At first the pupil's whole inner life is irradiated
by this basic mood of reverence for everything that is truly
venerable. His whole life of soul finds its centre in this one
basic feeling. Just as the sun's rays vivify everything living,
so does reverence in the pupil vivify all sentient experiences
of the soul.
"It is not easy at
first to believe that feelings such as those of reverence, respect
and so on, have anything to do with cognition. This is because
we are inclined to regard cognition as a faculty by itself, unrelated
to other happenings in the soul. We forget that it is the *soul*
which exercises the faculty of cognition; and feelings are for
the soul what foodstuffs are for the body. If the body is given
stones instead of bread, its activity will die away. So, too,
with the soul. Veneration, respect, devotion, are nourishing
foodstuffs which make the soul healthy and vigorous, especially
in the activity of cognition. Disrespect, antipathy, under-estimation
of what deserves recognition, exert a paralysing, withering effect
on the faculty of cognition. For the spiritual investigator this
fact is visible in the aura. A soul that cultivates feelings
of reverence and devotion brings about a change in its aura.
Certain spiritual colourings, as they may be called, yellowish-red,
brownish-red in tone, give way to bluish-red tints. Thereby the
faculty of cognition opens; it receives knowledge of facts in
its environment of which previously it had no inkling. Reverence
awakens a power of sympathy in the soul through which we draw
towards us qualities in the beings around us, qualities which
would otherwise remain concealed."
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 23:05:47 -0600
Thank you Tarjei. It is apparent that reverence
is not only my observation but is in fact promoted as part of
the spiritual path of anthroposophy. As far as response to criticism,
my experience both in person and on the list is that discussion
of Steiner with an anthroposophist has little of the feel that
I had discussing say Kant or Socrates in college. There is little
interest in looking at the pros and cons and endless energy showing
me the truth and wisdom of the anthroposophical way. I admire
you Tarjei for being open and honest about the religious nature
of anthroposophy. From what I am reading on the list, PLANS would
likely not have gotten started if there was such openness in
all the Waldorf schools.
Alan S. Fine MD
Tarjei quoted Steiner:
- He must be wary of thoughts of disrespect,
of adverse criticism, and must endavor straightway to cultivate
thoughts of reverence.
" But he can fit himself for this higher training if he
has previously undergone an unflagging training in devotional
reverence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 07:16:37
At 11:05 PM 4/18/99 -0600, you wrote:
I admire you Tarjei for being open and
honest about the religious nature of anthroposophy.
Yes, I thank Tarjei too on this point. But
note that there is a disagreement among at least some Anthroposophists
here. Tarjei freely acknowledges the religious nature of Anthroposophy,
while others, such as Stephen Tonkin, take issue with that descriptive
label.
Perhaps the Anthroposophists on this list
could provide some reasoning behind this difference of opinion.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:32:32 EDT
In einer eMail vom 19.04.99 17:40:20 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
John Morehead:
Perhaps the Anthroposophists on this list
could provide some reasoning behind this difference of opinion.
At the risk of being repetitive.......
Anthroposophists are not CLONES! What Stephen
thinks or what Tarjei thinks has no sway on what I think. What
an anthroposophist has to "believe" to sign up was
broadly stated a couple of days ago, and says NOTHING about all
anthroposophists having to agree about everything!
clear?
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:28:21
At 02:32 PM 4/19/99 EDT, you wrote:
In einer eMail vom 19.04.99 17:40:20 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt John Morehead:
Perhaps the Anthroposophists on this list
could provide some reasoning behind this difference of opinion.
At the risk of being repetitive.......
Anthroposophists are not CLONES! What Stephen thinks or what
Tarjei thinks has no sway on what I think. What an anthroposophist
has to "believe" to sign up was broadly stated a couple
of days ago, and says NOTHING about all anthroposophists having
to agree about everything!
Of course they aren't clones. Neither are
skeptics, orthodox Christians, etc. But that doesn't answer the
question about the discrepancy. Either Anthroposophy is a religion
or it is not. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on
this issue among Anthroposophists. This issue is paramount to
the Waldorf education controversy. So I'd like to hear from both
sides why they believe Anthroposophy is or is not a religion.
clear?
Crystal. Understand my valid point, Bruce?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:59:59 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce
At the risk of being repetitive.......
Anthroposophists are not CLONES! What Stephen thinks or what
Tarjei thinks has no sway on what I think. What an anthroposophist
has to "believe" to sign up was broadly stated a couple
of days ago, and says NOTHING about all anthroposophists having
to agree about everything!
clear?
Bruce
Methinks that the Waldorf Critics would have
preferred that you anthroposophists walk in robotic lockstep.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:29:24
At 02:59 PM 4/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
Methinks that the Waldorf Critics would
have preferred that you anthroposophists walk in robotic lockstep.
Bob
Methinks you misunderstand the Waldorf critics.
At least this one. See my response to Bruce for clarification.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:33:01 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
Yes, I thank Tarjei too on this point.
But note that there is a disagreement among at least some Anthroposophists
here. Tarjei freely acknowledges the religious nature of Anthroposophy,
while others, such as Stephen Tonkin, take issue with that descriptive
label.
Perhaps the Anthroposophists on this list could provide some
reasoning behind this difference of opinion.
Why should anthroposophists *not* have their
differences of opinion without having to make excuses for it?
Besides, Stephen Tonkin's approach is that
of a Waldorf teacher who is taking issue with the claim that
every subject taught to students is imbued with anthroposophical-religious
concepts. He has not denied, as far as I have noticed, the religious
aspect of anthroposophy. So where is our difference of opinion?
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:41:22 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote:
Methinks that the Waldorf Critics would have preferred that you
anthroposophists walk in robotic lockstep.
If we agree, we're brainwashed robots from
St. Rudy's factory. If we disagree, we're illogical, irrational,
and inconsistent, or somebody is being paid to lie by the Waldorf
Criminal Conspiracy Committee.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:16:03 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: defining religion
Bob Tolz wrote:
Methinks that the Waldorf Critics would
have preferred that you anthroposophists walk in robotic lockstep.
If we agree, we're brainwashed robots from
St. Rudy's factory. If we disagree, we're illogical, irrational,
and inconsistent, or somebody is being paid to lie by the Waldorf
Criminal Conspiracy Committee.
It reminds me of the time when a Waldorf student
sent a message to Dan to indicate that anthroposophy is not taught
in the classes. The kid related his experience that when he asked
his teacher to do a unit on anthroposophy, the teacher responded
that it wasn't permitted. Dan's response was something on the
order of, "Now don't you think that's a bit evasive on the
part of the teacher?" I seem to recall "complementing"
Dan's ability to twist any comment to serve his agenda.
The Waldorf Critics may be correct in rejecting
attempts to characterize them as prejudiced, since they claim
they have made their judgments "post" experience rather
than "pre," but they'll never convince me that they
are not close-minded, biased and unobjective. (To those of you
Waldorf Critics who might complain about my over-generalization
and wish to separate yourself from those who fit that description,
I apologize in advance.)
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:30:12 -0400
John wrote:
Yes, I thank Tarjei too on this point.
But note that there is a disagreement among at least some Anthroposophists
here. Tarjei freely acknowledges the religious nature of Anthroposophy,
while others, such as Stephen Tonkin, take issue with that descriptive
label.
Perhaps the Anthroposophists on this list could provide some
reasoning behind this difference of opinion.
From anthroposophist to anthropop, you'll
usually find quite a range of opinion on most things anthroposophical.
No matter how many study groups you work with or how many teachers'
conferences you attend, you're still working on what is essentially
your own personal understanding of Steiner's work and how it
relates to your individual world-view.
I think this is why Tarjei says we're all
anarchists at heart. What separates anthroposophists from the
bomb-throwers is the realization that throwing bombs interferes
pretty significantly with other people's freedom -- ideally,
we each have a continuing *responsibility* to find the truth
for ourselves, without compromising another individual's freedom
along the way.
Bob Jones (should I start putting quotation
marks around that name?) might say this extends to a complete
disregard for all conventions of society, and cite instances
of pot-smoking and underage drinking and irresponsible sex. .
. . My own experience tells me that anthropops are generally
pretty good citizens, because they recognize the truth and freedom
that's built into much of modern society. Many anthroposophists
would not, however, take to DARE (for the rest of the world,
these are the Drug Abuse Resistance Education programs often
associated with local police departments in the U.S.) because
they might view it as heavy-handed, authoritarian and ultimately
superficial.
Dan Dugan and Michael Kopp and Kathy Sutphen
would all say that anthroposophists *are* homogenous--they get
defensive when challenged and shun people asking tough questions
and they're rigid and dogmatic. This reflects their experience
with schools who took a "circle-the-wagons" mentality
when strongly challenged. I think I have a pretty good understanding
of what happened, after listening to their stories for all these
years and watching how they relate socially on this list.
I doubt you'll ever find total agreement on
the religious aspects of anthroposophy among anthroposophists.
Survey fifty fifth-grade teachers in waldorf schools and you'll
find fifty different ways to teach fifth grade (with a lot of
commonality, too!). Ask me if I think I can delve into the past
lives of my students and I would say no, but Rene Querido seems
to have a different opinion about that. Roy Wilkinson would no
doubt teach my class a *lot* differently than I do. Ask an anthroposophist
what they think about computers for children or adults and you'll
receive a wide range of opinions. Some anthroposophists are diagnosed
with cancer and turn to Iscador, others immediately look for
conventional treatments with chemo and radiation, while others
might rely on prayer or a combination of all three.
Ask a group of waldorf teachers what they
think about waldorf and public education (in whatever part of
the world they live). Ask an anthroposophist for his personal
opinion on Rudolf Steiner as an individual.
What are we? What do we represent as a group?
Who speaks for us?
How can we be classified if we can't even
say what anthroposophy represents or who
is an anthroposophist?
Robert Flannery
New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:15:50 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
Of course they aren't clones. Neither are
skeptics, orthodox Christians, etc. But that doesn't answer the
question about the discrepancy. Either Anthroposophy is a religion
or it is not. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on
this issue among Anthroposophists. This issue is paramount to
the Waldorf education controversy. So I'd like to hear from both
sides why they believe Anthroposophy is or is not a religion.
Just in case there is any misunderstanding
about this: I have not said, and I do not say, that anthroposophy
is a religion. I have said that it has religious elements, or
a religious aspect to it, because it is a synthesis of science,
art, and religion. But by "religious" I really mean
"occult." The latter expression is often so misunderstood
that I have taken the liberty of using the former, but it is
not always accurate, and now I recognize that it has been confusing.
Anthroposophy is first of all *an occult science*.
The Christian Community (The Movement for Religious Renewal),
which was established by Friedrich Rittelmeyer (a Lutheran theologian),
is an anthroposophical church community, though Steiner said
that the Christian Community was not anthroposophy; it was for
those who could not quite embrace anthroposophically oriented
spiritual science. It was a compromise between anthroposophy
and religion.
At one point Steiner said to Rittlemeyer:
"My task is occultism. Yours is religion."
So there is a distinction, but because this
distinction is part and parcel of the cultural heresy that anthroposophy
represents, just like the synthesis mentioned above, the word
"religious" has been used by me more frequently than
the word "occult" for sake of clarity on this list.
So what you call "a fundamental difference of opinion on
this issue among Anthroposophists" is not so fundamental
after all. Your impression is derived from the different styles
of expressions that we use as individuals due to different cultures
and vocations.
For a clearer understanding of the relationship
between anthroposophy and religion, I recommend the book by Rittelmeyer,
"Rudolf Steiner Enters My Life." He was an orthodox
Christian, so this book may answer some of your vital questions.
Dan Dugan should also be able to help you
out with his often mentioned "Man and the World of Stars."
The lecture held in Dornach December 30, 1922 (the night before
the fire) is entitled, "The Relation of the Movement for
Religious Renewal to the Anthroposophical Movement."
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:24:05 -0700
I think PLANS is about as diverse as a group
can get, at least in the polarity of skeptics and evangelicals
working together. But I acknowledge that Anthroposophists I've
met are often parties of one with regard to their interpretation
of Steiner. What unites them is reverence for Steiner. Now Waldorf
schools, they are much more alike!
-Dan Dugan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:59:27 +0200
Dan Dugan wrote:
I think PLANS is about as diverse as a
group can get, at least in the polarity of skeptics and evangelicals
working together. But I acknowledge that Anthroposophists I've
met are often parties of one with regard to their interpretation
of Steiner. What unites them is reverence for Steiner. Now Waldorf
schools, they are much more alike!
Waldorf critics are, as I understand it, people
who question Waldorf education, criticizing it, wanting to learn
and understand more about it, etc. There is nothing wrong with
that, and such critics may come from the most diverse of backgrounds,
cultures, professions, and opinions. What I have tried to take
specific issue with is what I call "hard core" WE criticism,
which entails an aggressive crusade against anthroposophy and
its founder,
I agree that reverence for Steiner is what
unites anthroposophists. However, that does not make them ipso
facto "parties of one" what interpretation of Steiner
is concerned.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: RE:Defining Religion
Date: 20 Apr 1999 12:12:50 -0400
Dan Dugan posted:
I think PLANS is about as diverse as a
group can get, at least in the polarity of skeptics and evangelicals
working together. But I acknowledge that Anthroposophists I've
met are often parties of one with regard to their interpretation
of Steiner. What unites them is reverence for Steiner. Now Waldorf
schools, they are much more alike!
Dan Dugan
Are there no other words for the way which
anthroposphists regard Steiner? How about respect, admiration,
curiousity, intrigue. Reverence is just empty political speech.
FWIW, When the diverse groups that you mention
do get together, it only makes me feel as though the thing under
scrutiny (anthroposphy, waldorf education, or Rudolf Steiner)
has got something interesting about it. Standing in the middle
one would expect to get critique from either end of the spectrum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE:Defining Religion
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:34:06 +0200
Luke Schelly wrote:
Are there no other words for the way which anthroposphists regard
Steiner? How about respect, admiration, curiousity, intrigue.
Reverence is just empty political speech.
I disagree. Reverence is the most noble and
precious kind of respect and admiration that a human being can
possess. It is a great loss for those who have been deprived
of it.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:38:49 EDT
In einer eMail vom 20.04.99 01:24:39 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
John Morehead:
Of course they aren't clones. Neither are
skeptics, orthodox Christians, etc. But that doesn't answer the
question about the discrepancy. Either Anthroposophy is a religion
or it is not. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on
this issue among Anthroposophists. This issue is paramount to
the Waldorf education controversy. So I'd like to hear from both
sides why they believe Anthroposophy is or is not a religion.
I have no view on whether anthroposophy is
a religion or not. I have no interest in spending time trying
to assess what a religion is and is not, and then trying to relate
to my view of anthroposophy. Maybe I would find that some aspects
of anthroposophy are religion and others not. Since anthroposophy
is the philosophy based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, and
as we ALL know he is very open to interpretation, I cannot see
how an answer is possible.
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: RE:defining religion
Date: 20 Apr 1999 17:11:39 -0400
Tarjei Straume posted
I disagree. Reverence is the most noble
and precious kind of respect and admiration that a human being
can possess. It is a great loss for those who have been deprived
of it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Another "party of one" heard from.
It may be a really and truly wonderful concept
but the critics implication/inuendo is that religions practice
reverence. Therefore, if you have reverence you evidence that
what you are involved in is a religion. You may not believe it,
but they don't care what you think, the focus is on imparting
associations that will cause nervousness, discomfort, and unease
to the casual lurker or newly interested. That is why (in this
case) it is empty political speech. (rhetoric).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE:defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:27:57 +0200
I wrote:
I disagree. Reverence is the most noble
and precious kind of respect and admiration that a human being
can possess. It is a great loss for those who have been deprived
of it.
Luke Schelly wrote:
Another "party of one" heard
from.
It may be a realy and truly wonderful concept but the critics
implication/inuendo is that religions practice reverence. Therefore,
if you have reverence you evidence that what you are involved
in is a religion. You may not believe it, but they don't care
what you think, the focus is on imparting associations that will
cause nervousness, discomfort, and unease to the casual lurker
or newly interested. That is why (in this case) it is empty political
speech. (rhetoric).
I believe it is a common temptation for anthroposophists
to become not only "defenders of the faith" but also
"cult apologists," apologizing for the occult, or the
religious-spiritual content in anthroposophy. So they play along
with the implication that reverence is something negative, something
indicative of cult brainwashing and the like, and they set out
to argue that there is very little reverence in anthroposophy.
This is bullshit, chickenshit, and horseshit all in one heap.
If you go along with the definition and negative
connotations of reverence proposed by the critics, you're being
manipulated by them. This needs to be confronted with no compromise.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:36:28 -0700
Tarjei, you wrote,
Anthroposophy is first of all *an occult
science*. The Christian Community (The Movement for Religious
Renewal), which was established by Friedrich Rittelmeyer (a Lutheran
theologian), is an anthroposophical church community, though
Steiner said that the Christian Community was not anthroposophy;
it was for those who could not quite embrace anthroposophically
oriented spiritual science. It was a compromise between anthroposophy
and religion.
Thank you for being so clear, Tarjei. This
is exactly my understanding of the role of CC. In practice, however,
CC serves as the ritual arm of Anthroposophy. A's typically use
CC for marriages, baptisms, funerals.
At one point Steiner said to Rittlemeyer:
"My task is occultism. Yours is religion."
By religion Steiner meant ritual worship.
Fair enough, but understand that in U.S. law there is no distinction
between occultism and religion, occultism is a religion, with
all the privileges of a religion, if these are claimed.
-Dan Dugan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 06:24:38 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan
By religion Steiner meant ritual worship.
Fair enough, but understand that in U.S. law there is no distinction
between occultism and religion, occultism is a religion, with
all the privileges of a religion, if these are claimed.
-Dan Dugan
Would you please provide me with a legal citation
so I can check your reference.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:26:27 +0200
Dan Dugan wrote:
By religion Steiner meant ritual worship.
Fair enough, but understand that in U.S. law there is no distinction
between occultism and religion, occultism is a religion, with
all the privileges of a religion, if these are claimed.
Those definitions are based upon misunderstanding
of anthroposophy and a subsequent rejection of it, because occultism
is a science, a field of research, supersensible research - not
religion. That is why Steiner made the clear distinction between
the two.
Whatever is defined in American legal terms
is completely beside the point, and should have no influence
whatsoever on how anthroposophists define anthroposophy.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: RE:defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:33:31 +1200
Luke Schelly says"
Tarjei Straume posted
I disagree. Reverence is the most noble
and precious kind of respect and admiration that a human being
can possess. It is a great loss for those who have been deprived
of it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Another "party of one" heard
from.
It may be a really and truly wonderful concept but the critics
implication/inuendo is that religions practice reverence. Therefore,
if you have reverence you evidence that what you are involved
in is a religion. You may not believe it, but they don't care
what you think, the focus is on imparting associations that will
cause nervousness, discomfort, and unease to the casual lurker
or newly interested. That is why (in this case) it is empty political
speech. (rhetoric).
Michael KOPP says:
You, of course, are entitled to your opinion
of what "the focus" of "the critics" is.
However, since the critics are a completely
unaligned, individualistic group (except for the amorphous PLANS
organisation), with no "ism", "y" or political
creed (except perhaps the Constitution of the United States),
I think it might be a tad presumptuous of you to tell the readers
of this list what it is the critics are trying to do to them.
And if you want to say what "the critics'"
agenda is, you might be a little more precise with the language
than to say that they want to "impart associations".
Finally, for the record, this critic has only
one goal (because I am not at this time a U.S. resident and cannot
therefore share in PLANS' goal of separation of the religioius
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical educational movement from
public schools and public money).
My goal is simply to have the facts of SWA
practices and beliefs exposed to as much light of day as possible,
because I have found SWA people duplicitous and secretive with
prospective customers of their schools.
Contrary to your assertion, Luke, I want this
exposure to produce in all people who have an interest in SWA,
but who know nothing about it, the comfort that comes with foreknowledge
of what they are getting into, a sense of ease that they can
get more than one side of the story, and a certainty that they
can control their decisions in an informed way.
Your statements are not helpful to the charter
of this list, which is to criticize, not to have a nefarious
agenda. You have no evidence of the motivation of "the critics",
and your view of the critics' "focus" is not supported
by the record in the archives, which newcomers are urged to read.
You're getting more and more petulant in your
sniping, Luke -- you used to make reasoned contributions to the
discussion. What's eating you?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: RE:defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:36:05 +1200
Tarjei Straume writes:
If you go along with the definition and
negative connotations of reverence proposed by the critics, you're
being manipulated by them. This needs to be confronted with no
compromise.
Michael KOPP says:
Please quote passages from critics' writings
which support your assertion that the critics' definition of
reverence has "negative connotations", and explain
exactly what that phrase means.
Otherwise your comment is meaningless.
Michael Kopp
WEllington, New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE:defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:29:03 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
Please quote passages from critics' writings which support your
assertion that the critics' definition of reverence has "negative
connotations", and explain exactly what that phrase means.
Certain posts by Alan Fine are good examples
of what I am getting at. Fri, 16 Apr, he wrote:
"To me the strongest
indicator that Anthroposophy is a religion is the
reverence which its adherents attach to their beliefs and their
reaction
when they are challenged."
The negative connotations are not spelled
out, but they are clearly indicated.
And I will not explain to you exactly what
the phrase means. If you don't see it, you don't see it.
Otherwise your comment is meaningless.
If any comment by me is meaningless to you,
it is not ipso facto meaningless to all the subscribers, not
even to all the critics.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
Tarjei Straume writes:
Dan Dugan wrote:
By religion Steiner meant ritual worship.
Fair enough, but understand that in U.S. law there is no distinction
between occultism and religion, occultism is a religion, with
all the privileges of a religion, if these are claimed.
Those definitions are based upon misunderstanding
of anthroposophy and a subsequent rejection of it, because occultism
is a science, a field of research, supersensible research - not
religion. That is why Steiner made the clear distinction between
the two.
See what I mean, Bob (Tolz)? There are people
who go from calling it "spiritual science" to saying
it is a science.
We've been through this, and anthroposophy
fits no definition of science acceptable to anyone who knows
any science.
--Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:35:57 +0200
I wrote:
Those definitions are based upon misunderstanding
of anthroposophy and a subsequent rejection of it, because occultism
is a science, a field of research, supersensible research - not
religion. That is why Steiner made the clear distinction between
the two.
Michael Hirsch wrote:
See what I mean, Bob (Tolz)? There are
people who go from calling it "spiritual science" to
saying it is a science.
We've been through this, and anthroposophy fits no definition
of science acceptable to anyone who knows any science.
People who know science are divided on this,
because the Scientific Community does not have a monopoly on
such knowledge.
The definition in question is perfectly acceptable
to many people who know a great deal about science.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:19:54 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: defining religion
Tarjei Straume writes:
Those definitions are based upon misunderstanding
of anthroposophy and a subsequent rejection of it, because occultism
is a science, a field of research, supersensible research - not
religion. That is why Steiner made the clear distinction between
the two.
[Michael Hirsch]
See what I mean, Bob (Tolz)? There are
people who go from calling it "spiritual science" to
saying it is a science.
We've been through this, and anthroposophy fits no definition
of science acceptable to anyone who knows any science.
--Michael
I'm still with you Michael on the issue of
"spiritual science" not being "science" in
the ordinarily understood definition of the word, just like "social
science" or "economic science." But I'm not sure
that Tarjei is saying much different from that by saying it's
"a" science.
I'm speculating here: Perhaps the word "science"
is being used by the anthroposophists in the sense that the individual
conducts "experiments" which can be reported upon to
others who are doing similar research, notes can be compared,
and when it turns out that the results can be replicated by more
than one "researcher," the researchers have a fruitful
area for further research. Since the results are based on personal
observations rather than instrument observations, this science
parts ways with ordinary science, but it may share at least some
of ordinary science's methods.
To Tarjei: It would be useful for me and probably
others on this list to hear from you on the methods of "spiritual
science."
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:19:49 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote:
To Tarjei: It would be useful for me and
probably others on this list to hear from you on the methods
of "spiritual science."
"Spiritual Research: Methods and Results"
- Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1981.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:01:17 -0700
On 21 Apr 99, at 12:26, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dan Dugan wrote:
By religion Steiner meant ritual worship.
Fair enough, but understand that in U.S. law there is no distinction
between occultism and religion, occultism is a religion, with
all the privileges of a religion, if these are claimed.
Whatever is defined in American legal terms
is completely beside the point, and should have no influence
whatsoever on how anthroposophists define anthroposophy.
As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether
anthroposophy is a religion is relevant only in terms of whether
it is legal to have public Waldorf schools in the U.S. Other
than that, I don't really care whether Anthroposophists consider
it a religion, or wish to pretend that it is a form of science.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:03:29 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
Bob Tolz wrote:
To Tarjei: It would be useful for me and
probably others on this list to hear from you on the methods
of "spiritual science."
"Spiritual Research: Methods and Results"
- Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1981.
So there's an entire book on it....
Since we're just trying to get an appreciation
of the methods and not trying to apply them for ourselves, would
you care to summarize some of the salient points of the methods
so that we all don't have to go out and buy the book.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:04:43 -0700
On 21 Apr 99, at 15:35, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
See what I mean, Bob (Tolz)? There are
people who go from calling it "spiritual science" to
saying it is a science.
We've been through this, and anthroposophy fits no definition
of science acceptable to anyone who knows any science.
People who know science are divided on
this, because the Scientific Cmmunity does not have a monopoly
on such knowledge.
Sure, there are lots of people who know science,
and even lots of people within the scientific community, who
harbor all kinds of strange ideas. But any definition of science
which is acceptable to the great majority of scientists whose
work is published in generally accepted scientific journals would
not include anthroposophy.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:08:21 -0700
On 21 Apr 99, at 17:19, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Bob Tolz wrote:
To Tarjei: It would be useful for me and
probably others on this list to hear from you on the methods
of "spiritual science."
"Spiritual Research: Methods and Results"
- Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1981.
That's not very useful. Could you summarize
the methods for us? Or could anyone out there do that?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
Tolz, Robert writes:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch
Tarjei Straume writes:
Those definitions are based upon misunderstanding
of anthroposophy and a subsequent rejection of it, because occultism
is a science, a field of research, supersensible research - not
religion. That is why Steiner made the clear distinction between
the two.
[Michael Hirsch]
See what I mean, Bob (Tolz)? There are
people who go from calling it "spiritual science" to
saying it is a science.
We've been through this, and anthroposophy fits no definition
of science acceptable to anyone who knows any science.
I'm still with you Michael on the issue
of "spiritual science" not being "science"
in the ordinarily understood definition of the word, just like
"social science" or "economic science." But
I'm not sure that Tarjei is saying much different from that by
saying it's "a" science.
I think it is pretty clear that he is claiming
it is a science, not just a field of study but of scientific
study.
I'm speculating here: Perhaps the word "science"
is being used by the anthroposophists in the sense that the individual
conducts "experiments" which can be reported upon to
others who are doing similar research, notes can be compared,
and when it turns out that the results can be replicated by more
than one "researcher," the researchers have a fruitful
area for further research. Since the results are based on personal
observations rather than instrument observations, this science
parts ways with ordinary science, but it may share at least some
of ordinary science's methods.
You're really reaching, Bob. We've been through
this. That fact that the observations are not quantified is not
the issue. The issue is that replicability and falsifiability
do not enter into it. We've asked them multiple time "What
if I do your experiment and I don't get your results?" This
is the first question that must be answered by any science researcher
and the only reply is "Do the experiment (which usually
involves years of training) and ask me them."
This is not science. It might be something
else, though I don't know what. I'm sure someone else could offer
some suggestions for a suitable noun. <g>
--Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:19:25 -0600
[Steve Premo:]
As far as I'm concerned, the question of
whether anthroposophy is a religion is relevant only in terms
of whether it is legal to have public Waldorf schools in the
U.S. Other than that, I don't really care whether Anthroposophists
consider it a religion, or wish to pretend that it is a form
of science.
[Alan S. Fine MD:]
I for one would feel much more comfortable
if Anthroposophists considered it a religion. Considering matters
of faith to be scientific realities is more than just a misnomer.
It involves a loss of reality testing. I have repeatedly seen
such lapses cause problems both for the indivdual involved and
for the surroundings. Of course to some anthroposophists there
is not problem, because the things I (and the vast majority of
human beings) would call a matter of faith or belief, they would
call objective reality. Am I the only one that feels that this
is an unhealthy situation?
Alan S. Fine MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:42:33 -0700
On 21 Apr 99, at 11:19, Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Considering matters of faith to be scientific
realities is more than just a misnomer. It involves a loss of
reality testing. I have repeatedly seen such lapses cause problems
both for the indivdual involved and for the surroundings. Of
course to some anthroposophists there is not problem, because
the things I (and the vast majority of human beings) would call
a matter of faith or belief, they would call objective reality.
Am I the only one that feels that this is an unhealthy situation?
I don't know, Alan. You're the shrink. But
it seems to me that religious people routinely consider matters
of faith to be objective reality. To many Christians, for example,
Satan is a real guy who really exists, Hell is a real place,
and everybody who doesn't follow their religion is really going
to go to Hell for all eternity when they die. I don't know that
such beliefs are harmful for those who harbor them.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:36:48 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch
[Michael Hirsch]
I think it is pretty clear that he is claiming
it is a science, not just a field of study but of scientific
study.
[Bob Tolz]
It doesn't bother me if Tarjei considers it
a scientific study, nor does it bother me if a sociologist considers
a sociological study scientific -- just so long as they both
recognize that a scientist would not consider it "science"
within the meaning of the word as used by scientists.
Nor, as a matter of fact, does it matter much
to me whether someone calls anthroposophy a religion or not.
My own personal opinion is that it is not, but my opinion doesn't
count for anything. The only person whose opinion matters on
that issue is the judge.
I think we're getting into definitional questions
on this list that people are simply not likely to agree upon.
Witness, for instance, the discussion
of the anthroposophists on this list on the question of who is
and who is not an anthroposophist.
If I call something purple and my wife calls
it magenta, what does it matter? I know that's a trivial example,
but I'm getting a similar feeling on some of the other issues.
[Bob Tolz]
I'm speculating here: Perhaps the word
"science" is being used by the anthroposophists in
the sense that the individual conducts "experiments"
which can be reported upon to others who are doing similar research,
notes can be compared, and when it turns out that the results
can be replicated by more than one "researcher," the
researchers have a fruitful area for further research. Since
the results are based on personal observations rather than instrument
observations, this science parts ways with ordinary science,
but it may share at least some of ordinary science's methods.
[Michael Hirsch]
You're really reaching, Bob. We've been
through this. That fact that the observations are not quantified
is not the issue. The issue is that replicability and falsifiability
do not enter into it. We've asked them multiple time "What
if I do your experiment and I don't get your results?" This
is the first question that must be answered by any science researcher
and the only reply is "Do the experiment (which usually
involves years of training) and ask me them."
No, I don't think I'm reaching at all, because
what I've described is not significantly different from what
I and others on my own spiritual path go through, though we don't
call it science (nor do we aim to enter into many of the things
that have been described by anthroposophists on this list).
Replicability and falsifiability of this type
of "experiment" are impossible to predict, because
the observer of the experiment is the subject of the experiment,
and how the heck are you going to get a control group out of
that??? Another obstacle to replicability and falsifiability
is that so much depends on the differences between each individual
subject; e.g., their innate tendencies, their cultural background,
what they understand rationally and intuitively.
It's also difficult to say that the "experiment"
would be replicable or falsifiable on even a single individual.
If I tried an "experiment" on myself that I think is
appropriate today, it might not have been appropriate last year
because it just would have gone completely over my head if I
was not then prepared to interpret the experience and the results.
And next year, my understandings will be different from what
they are now, so I might be exploring something quite different.
All the foregoing is based on my own experience,
not Tarjei's, so I don't know whether it has anything to do with
how Tarjei would explain his "science."
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:51:19 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan S. Fine MD
[Steve Premo:]
As far as I'm concerned, the question of
whether anthroposophy is a religion is relevant only in terms
of whether it is legal to have public Waldorf schools in the
U.S. Other than that, I don't really care whether Anthroposophists
consider it a religion, or wish to pretend that it is a form
of science.
I am in 100% agreement with you Alan.
[Alan S. Fine MD:]
I for one would feel much more comfortable
if Anthroposophists considered it a religion. Considering matters
of faith to be scientific realities is more than just a misnomer.
It involves a loss of reality testing. I have repeatedly seen
such lapses cause problems both for the indivdual involved and
for the surroundings. Of course to some anthroposophists there
is not problem, because the things I (and the vast majority of
human beings) would call a matter of faith or belief, they would
call objective reality. Am I the only one that feels that this
is an unhealthy situation?
Don't we get back to the same difficulty that
hampers a lot of discussion on this list? If I have verified
for myself the existence of something which I cannot prove to
you because it cannot be touched or measured, it is easy for
you to judge it (if you have not verified it for yourself) as
being based on pure faith. How can you know that? How can you
dismiss it as being unhealthy?
I have not verified for myself whatever the
anthroposophists feel they have verified for themselves. That
doesn't give me the right to push it aside as being pure faith.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:20:39 +0200
Steve Premo wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the question of
whether anthroposophy is a religion is relevant only in terms
of whether it is legal to have public Waldorf schools in the
U.S. Other than that, I don't really care whether Anthroposophists
consider it a religion, or wish to pretend that it is a form
of science.
But that was what the question was raised
in connection with, somehow blurring the distinction that you
describe. If Waldorf representatives or other anthropops are
playing around with definitions like religion, science, occultism,
etc. to make critics "comfortable" with it, perhaps
with the view of winning a court case, they're compromising honesty.
If they're not willing to lose battles, they
won't win the war.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:30:29 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote:
To Tarjei: It would be useful for me and
probably others on this list to hear from you on the methods
of "spiritual science."
I wrote:
"Spiritual Research: Methods and Results"
- Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1981.
Bob Tolz wrote:
So there's an entire book on it....
Since we're just trying to get an appreciation of the methods
and not trying to apply them for ourselves, would you care to
summarize some of the salient points of the methods so that we
all don't have to go out and buy the book.
How relevant is this to WE and the American
constitution? The reason I ask is that I have to say no to a
lot of effort-and-time-consuming requests made to me on this
list. The answer to your question is best answered by "Occult
Science," "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds" and
other basic books, and the epistemology behind it is found in
"Truth and Science" and "Philosophy of Freedom."
I may get back to the summary you're asking
for if I can find the time and feel in the mood to respond to
the three or four or perhaps six and seven looooong posts by
Michael Kopp and others that will probably follow. It can easily
become a very tedious thread.
[The post was
written: Anthroposophy
as a Science, not a Religion]
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:35:18 +0200
Steve Premo wrote:
Sure, there are lots of people who know
science, and even lots of people within the scientific community,
who harbor all kinds of strange ideas. But any definition of
science which is acceptable to the great majority of scientists
whose work is published in generally accepted scientific journals
would not include anthroposophy.
Neither do these journals have a monopoly
on the word "science" nor on the claim to scientific
knowledge. If they did, they could sue the AS and similar organizations.
They can't, because they have no such authority.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:36:50 +0200
On 21 Apr 99, at 17:19, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Bob Tolz wrote:
To Tarjei: It would be useful for me and
probably others on this list to hear from you on the methods
of "spiritual science."
"Spiritual Research: Methods and Results"
- Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1981.
Steve Premo wrote:
That's not very useful. Could you summarize the methods for us?
Or could anyone out there do that?
Please see my response to Bob Tolz on the
same question. I may get back to it.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:47:31 +0200
Alan Fine wrote:
I for one would feel much more comfortable
if Anthroposophists considered it a religion.
Alan, you're always telling us what would
make you comfortable. Unfortunately, I can contribute nothing
to your feeling of comfort - especially in relation to anthroposophy.
Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.
I consider anthroposophy a science, not a
religion. Be as uncomfortable as you may.
Cheers
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:50:12 -0700
On 21 Apr 99, at 14:51, Tolz, Robert wrote:
From: Alan S. Fine MD [Steve Premo:]
As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether anthroposophy
is a religion is relevant only in terms of whether it is legal
to have public Waldorf schools in the U.S. Other than that, I
don't really care whether Anthroposophists consider it a religion,
or wish to pretend that it is a form of science.
I am in 100% agreement with you Alan.
For the record, that was me; Alan was quoting
me, and responding to what I had said.
Alan did write the rest of his post, regarding
confusing faith with objective reality.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:52:40 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
Sure, there are lots of people who know science, and even lots
of people within the scientific community, who harbor all kinds
of strange ideas. But any definition of science which is acceptable
to the great majority of scientists whose work is published in
generally accepted scientific journals would not include anthroposophy.
I agree that this is true. As I think I have
said before, the orthodox definition of science has narrowed
over the recent centuries. Something that derived from the Latin
"scio" = "I know", has been redefined so
that it means that which relates not broadly to knowledge but
to what is commonly known as "scientific method". When
an anthropop speaks of science in relation to the spirit, it
is not in any way in the sense that an orthodox scientist uses
the term -- it is a way of "knowing" the spiritual
realities which we believe underlie the physical realities.
It is really a dead end for either side to
pretend that they are speaking of the same thing -- each has
defined "science" in a different way. I write this
as one who has a foot in each cam ... (Comments about the effect
of the intervening fence are unnecessary <g>)
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: RE: defining religion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Tolz, Robert writes:
[Michael Hirsch]
I think it is pretty clear that he is claiming
it is a science, not just a field of study but of scientific
study.
[Bob Tolz]
It doesn't bother me if Tarjei considers
it a scientific study, nor does it bother me if a sociologist
considers a sociological study scientific -- just so long as
they both recognize that a scientist would not consider it "science"
within the meaning of the word as used by scientists.
Yet the statement came from someone's suggested
PR blurb for Waldorf: "a scientifically valid understanding
of human nature" is, I believe, a quote or at worst a very
close paraphrase. Should they be required to put in a footnote
("*This use of 'scientific' is a use not in accord with
the standard usage of scientists")? Much better to oppose
the language in the first place.
Nor, as a matter of fact, does it matter much to me whether
someone calls anthroposophy a religion or not. My own personal
opinion is that it is not, but my opinion doesn't count for anything.
The only person whose opinion matters on that issue is the judge.
I have always agreed that they can call it
anything they want amongst themselves, but when speaking with
(or writing brochures for) members of the general public they
should avoid characterizing it as science.
If I call something purple and my wife
calls it magenta, what does it matter? I know that's a trivial
example, but I'm getting a similar feeling on some of the other
issues.
If I call red g