Hi Seth, Great points you make here and I know you could say more! One practical/game-changing approach would be to fund schools across the nation equally rather than based on local real estate or any other local taxes, and for the taxes to support the infrastructure and operational costs of schools but with no say on the curriculum of each school community...how rich and diverse this would be! Thank you!
Thanks, Ben. Yeah, this whole question is quite challenging. Tying school funding to taxes is so clearly unjust, it's strange that it persists. But it's also the case that different people have different needs, and that those have a relation to where they live and the cost of living in that place, so it's also hard to imagine just giving every school the same amount per child. It too would likely lead to difficulties. I think it points to the need to become clear within the economy that its purpose is meeting everyone's needs, and that creating much more sensitive organs (in the form of Steiner's associations) is necessary to do so. But of course, those are further steps. How we take the first steps in a way that begins to remedy the situation is what's most pressing, and your suggestion points in that direction. Hope you're well! - Seth
I agree re it being hard and certainly it could be based on the cost of living in any area...and I think families choose to live where there are "good schools" because they can afford to move there, thus solidifying the status quo. By equalizing the infrastructure and operational funding while allowing families to choose what approach to education they would like for their children, something of a gourmet salad might emerge rather than the bland melting pot we have in current public education.
I could use your help to wrap my head around your point, Seth, that - from three-fold organism perspective - state-run schooling is actually unconstitutional and new Christo-fascist Speaker of the House Mike Johnson perspective - based on HIS reading of the First Amendment - that “separation of church and state is a misnomer”. That church and state belong together not apart. Your thoughts?
Hey Joan - thanks for the question, I hadn't been aware of the Mike Johnson's "separation of church and state is a misnomer" statement, but it's good to know about.
So I've just read a few articles about Mike Johnson, and his view of the relation between church and state isn't entirely clear to me. He certainly makes it clear that he believes his morality is a direct expression of the bible, and so that's how he acts and votes as a politician - in alignment with the bible. I have no problem with that. Everyone has to act and vote out of their own moral compass, and that's his.
The problem would arise if he thought that the majority of the country should be able to impose their values on everyone else - to force people to observe Christian holidays, to send their children to Christian schools, etc. etc. But I haven't found where he says that.
In the squawbox interview he says: "We need more of [religion], not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody's vibrant expression of faith." That sounds to me like he'd be excited to see people of all different faiths praying in the capital building and, for instance, to see Ilhan Omar wearing a head covering and being sworn into office on the Qur'an and not the Bible. But I don't know if that's really the case. It's hard to tell from that one statement.
His other major statement from the interview was: "What [Jefferson] was explaining is, they didn't want the government to encroach upon the church, not that they didn't want principles of faith to have influence on our public life." This is pretty accurate - the separation of church and state was largely about stopping the government from influencing people's personal beliefs. Of course, that happens when the government is taken over by one religious group or another, but it also happens when the government is run along secular lines and so forces its citizens to observe secular holidays and send their children to secular schools. The same influencing, the same imposition of values takes place.
So I haven't seen where he's really crossed the line - where he's advocating for the imposition of Christian values on other people. And it's important to see that that is the line. I don't think it's right to tell people that they shouldn't be able to act out of their own faith or express their own faith in public spaces such as government buildings. That's what they do in France where they've banned all religious symbols - like a necklace with a cross on it or a Jewish Kippah - from public schools and the like. There's no way Ilhan Omar would be able to wear a head covering in a French government building. And that's a shame. It suppresses the expression of people's full individuality.
Thanks again, and let me know if there's anything that's still unclear from the article.
Quick reply. Mike’s assertion is all over the news right now (of course) since any perceived attack on sep church + state draws ire from liberal press. It seems to me that 3XFSO is not ATTACKING Sep but REDEFINING “church” as cultural/spiritual independence/freedom. The challenge is that ‘freedom’ tends to mean ‘selfishness/elitism’ to the ‘liberal’ mindset. How to parse out the social equity of individual freedom. LOVE THIS CONVERSATION. Thank you Seth and our fellow conversant!!
Yeah, it's not attacking but upholding the absolutely necessary separation between the individual and the state - between the government and everything that has to do with an individual's identity and culture.
One clarification from my previous comment: People definitely aren't wrong to be worried about the church encroaching upon the state. The state is, in a sense, neutral. The issue is that people being their cultural values into the political realm and try to impose them on others through the machinery of the state. The main thing is sorting out what's the rightful domain of culture and what's the rightful domain of politics, and recognizing that "cultural values" isn't synonymous w/ "religious values" - it's ALL values, including secular ones.
Nov 18, 2023·edited Nov 18, 2023Liked by Seth Jordan
Yes. We need and want to separate church and state. And, as you say "The issue is that people being their cultural values into the political realm and try to impose them on others through the machinery of the state." We all want social justice and think that 'democracy' is the means. 'Freedom' is another means to social justice. We want the social justice of standardized public education but then the standardization is unjust to the individual. It's sort of a tragedy of two goods. The tragedy of good vs good. Right vs right.
And, as you say, as long as we reduce cultural/spiritual/atheist values to old-fashioned religious values we are in a bind.
When he was still President of the Mind and Life Institute Arthur Zajonc hosted a special session exploring the theme (in summary) "no inner development/mindfulness without social justice / no social justice without inner development/mindfulness". Today, we would call Mindfulness without social justice "spiritual bypass", eh? Maybe we need a companion term like "political bypass" to describe what we are doing when we think voting excuses us from the complications of true justice and equal difference.
Interesting take, Seth! I didn't realize you were so radical! Is there significant overlap between libertarians and proponents of Steiner's educational and philosophical principles? Or is this issue an outlier?
You make a strong and thought-provoking argument, though it rests heavily on those citations regarding the First Amendment's core purpose being to safeguard the “welfare of the single human soul,” to create an independent “sphere of intellect and spirit” that ensures one has “autonomous control over the development of one’s intellect and personality.” I would need to explore the original sources to better understand if they represent legal precedent or are just strongly held opinions of so-called experts.
Without doing more of my own research, I worry you're engaging in a broad interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., interpreting intent beyond the specific provisions stated in the text) the same way radical gun-rights advocates interpret the Second Amendment as protectiung their right to own personal nuclear weapons.
Very interesting post, though. I'll think on it some more and try to make time to read Stephen Arons' paper.
Hey Whit, great to hear from you. Yeah, there's probably significant overlap in certain ways. For instance, I speak about "free culture" in this article, so that's not just education, but art, science, medicine, etc. Everyone should be free to pursue their own cultural practices without the government saying "this is legitimate medicine, but this other type of medicine isn't." Who really thinks politicians should have a role in deciding what's true and false? Obviously, plenty of people do, but I also think that they don't in their heart of hearts, and especially when it goes against their truth. The fact is, we're conflicted and we haven't fully taken hold of our ideals.
So I assume "free culture" would resonate with most libertarians. But Steiner's social ideas aren't only about freedom, they're also about equality in the realm of rights/law, and solidarity in the economy. Those two aspects speak more strongly to those on the left... though of course every economist, even the most conservative, has said that the purpose of the economy is to meet everyone's needs, they just emphasize that the best way of doing that is by giving free reign to job creators so that "all boats rise." Really, this just means that we need freedom for individuals to take initiative on behalf of the whole - we don't want a state-run command economy - and Steiner is in full agreement here as well. Entrepreneurship is the spiritual-cultural aspect of the economy, it's the part that requires freedom, but that leads Steiner to say that therefore everyone with capacity should have access to the means of productions that they need in order to produce, and it shouldn't be based on the arbitrary dictates of being born into a wealthy family that allows you the opportunity to take initiative.
Anyways, those are some of the directions of Steiner's observation and how they touch on libertarianism.
I'd definitely recommend the Stephen Aron's paper. But I wonder what you think about what's really my main argument. Yes, the language of the "human soul" and "development" and the "sphere of intellect and spirit" is all important, it gives the ideas greater clarity, but the main argument is simply that the First Amendment is fundamentally all about the individual's freedom of thought, which government schools can't help but infringe upon. Do you think there's a different way of interpreting the First Amendment? - that's it's not about freedom of thought, but about some other principle? And do you think that government schools can possibly say that they're not shaping and influencing the thoughts of individuals? I know they say "we're not telling people what to think, but how to think," but that's just splitting hairs. Every choice about curriculum - about what to teach and how to teach it - is determining what children learn and think.
Thanks for your thoughts! I'd be interested if you can see a different way of understanding these things that you think holds water. All the best - Seth
Hi Seth, Great points you make here and I know you could say more! One practical/game-changing approach would be to fund schools across the nation equally rather than based on local real estate or any other local taxes, and for the taxes to support the infrastructure and operational costs of schools but with no say on the curriculum of each school community...how rich and diverse this would be! Thank you!
Ben
Thanks, Ben. Yeah, this whole question is quite challenging. Tying school funding to taxes is so clearly unjust, it's strange that it persists. But it's also the case that different people have different needs, and that those have a relation to where they live and the cost of living in that place, so it's also hard to imagine just giving every school the same amount per child. It too would likely lead to difficulties. I think it points to the need to become clear within the economy that its purpose is meeting everyone's needs, and that creating much more sensitive organs (in the form of Steiner's associations) is necessary to do so. But of course, those are further steps. How we take the first steps in a way that begins to remedy the situation is what's most pressing, and your suggestion points in that direction. Hope you're well! - Seth
I agree re it being hard and certainly it could be based on the cost of living in any area...and I think families choose to live where there are "good schools" because they can afford to move there, thus solidifying the status quo. By equalizing the infrastructure and operational funding while allowing families to choose what approach to education they would like for their children, something of a gourmet salad might emerge rather than the bland melting pot we have in current public education.
Explainer please!
I could use your help to wrap my head around your point, Seth, that - from three-fold organism perspective - state-run schooling is actually unconstitutional and new Christo-fascist Speaker of the House Mike Johnson perspective - based on HIS reading of the First Amendment - that “separation of church and state is a misnomer”. That church and state belong together not apart. Your thoughts?
Hey Joan - thanks for the question, I hadn't been aware of the Mike Johnson's "separation of church and state is a misnomer" statement, but it's good to know about.
So I've just read a few articles about Mike Johnson, and his view of the relation between church and state isn't entirely clear to me. He certainly makes it clear that he believes his morality is a direct expression of the bible, and so that's how he acts and votes as a politician - in alignment with the bible. I have no problem with that. Everyone has to act and vote out of their own moral compass, and that's his.
The problem would arise if he thought that the majority of the country should be able to impose their values on everyone else - to force people to observe Christian holidays, to send their children to Christian schools, etc. etc. But I haven't found where he says that.
In the squawbox interview he says: "We need more of [religion], not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody's vibrant expression of faith." That sounds to me like he'd be excited to see people of all different faiths praying in the capital building and, for instance, to see Ilhan Omar wearing a head covering and being sworn into office on the Qur'an and not the Bible. But I don't know if that's really the case. It's hard to tell from that one statement.
His other major statement from the interview was: "What [Jefferson] was explaining is, they didn't want the government to encroach upon the church, not that they didn't want principles of faith to have influence on our public life." This is pretty accurate - the separation of church and state was largely about stopping the government from influencing people's personal beliefs. Of course, that happens when the government is taken over by one religious group or another, but it also happens when the government is run along secular lines and so forces its citizens to observe secular holidays and send their children to secular schools. The same influencing, the same imposition of values takes place.
So I haven't seen where he's really crossed the line - where he's advocating for the imposition of Christian values on other people. And it's important to see that that is the line. I don't think it's right to tell people that they shouldn't be able to act out of their own faith or express their own faith in public spaces such as government buildings. That's what they do in France where they've banned all religious symbols - like a necklace with a cross on it or a Jewish Kippah - from public schools and the like. There's no way Ilhan Omar would be able to wear a head covering in a French government building. And that's a shame. It suppresses the expression of people's full individuality.
Thanks again, and let me know if there's anything that's still unclear from the article.
Quick reply. Mike’s assertion is all over the news right now (of course) since any perceived attack on sep church + state draws ire from liberal press. It seems to me that 3XFSO is not ATTACKING Sep but REDEFINING “church” as cultural/spiritual independence/freedom. The challenge is that ‘freedom’ tends to mean ‘selfishness/elitism’ to the ‘liberal’ mindset. How to parse out the social equity of individual freedom. LOVE THIS CONVERSATION. Thank you Seth and our fellow conversant!!
Yeah, it's not attacking but upholding the absolutely necessary separation between the individual and the state - between the government and everything that has to do with an individual's identity and culture.
One clarification from my previous comment: People definitely aren't wrong to be worried about the church encroaching upon the state. The state is, in a sense, neutral. The issue is that people being their cultural values into the political realm and try to impose them on others through the machinery of the state. The main thing is sorting out what's the rightful domain of culture and what's the rightful domain of politics, and recognizing that "cultural values" isn't synonymous w/ "religious values" - it's ALL values, including secular ones.
Thanks for the convo.
Yes. We need and want to separate church and state. And, as you say "The issue is that people being their cultural values into the political realm and try to impose them on others through the machinery of the state." We all want social justice and think that 'democracy' is the means. 'Freedom' is another means to social justice. We want the social justice of standardized public education but then the standardization is unjust to the individual. It's sort of a tragedy of two goods. The tragedy of good vs good. Right vs right.
And, as you say, as long as we reduce cultural/spiritual/atheist values to old-fashioned religious values we are in a bind.
When he was still President of the Mind and Life Institute Arthur Zajonc hosted a special session exploring the theme (in summary) "no inner development/mindfulness without social justice / no social justice without inner development/mindfulness". Today, we would call Mindfulness without social justice "spiritual bypass", eh? Maybe we need a companion term like "political bypass" to describe what we are doing when we think voting excuses us from the complications of true justice and equal difference.
Interesting take, Seth! I didn't realize you were so radical! Is there significant overlap between libertarians and proponents of Steiner's educational and philosophical principles? Or is this issue an outlier?
You make a strong and thought-provoking argument, though it rests heavily on those citations regarding the First Amendment's core purpose being to safeguard the “welfare of the single human soul,” to create an independent “sphere of intellect and spirit” that ensures one has “autonomous control over the development of one’s intellect and personality.” I would need to explore the original sources to better understand if they represent legal precedent or are just strongly held opinions of so-called experts.
Without doing more of my own research, I worry you're engaging in a broad interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., interpreting intent beyond the specific provisions stated in the text) the same way radical gun-rights advocates interpret the Second Amendment as protectiung their right to own personal nuclear weapons.
Very interesting post, though. I'll think on it some more and try to make time to read Stephen Arons' paper.
-Whit
Hey Whit, great to hear from you. Yeah, there's probably significant overlap in certain ways. For instance, I speak about "free culture" in this article, so that's not just education, but art, science, medicine, etc. Everyone should be free to pursue their own cultural practices without the government saying "this is legitimate medicine, but this other type of medicine isn't." Who really thinks politicians should have a role in deciding what's true and false? Obviously, plenty of people do, but I also think that they don't in their heart of hearts, and especially when it goes against their truth. The fact is, we're conflicted and we haven't fully taken hold of our ideals.
So I assume "free culture" would resonate with most libertarians. But Steiner's social ideas aren't only about freedom, they're also about equality in the realm of rights/law, and solidarity in the economy. Those two aspects speak more strongly to those on the left... though of course every economist, even the most conservative, has said that the purpose of the economy is to meet everyone's needs, they just emphasize that the best way of doing that is by giving free reign to job creators so that "all boats rise." Really, this just means that we need freedom for individuals to take initiative on behalf of the whole - we don't want a state-run command economy - and Steiner is in full agreement here as well. Entrepreneurship is the spiritual-cultural aspect of the economy, it's the part that requires freedom, but that leads Steiner to say that therefore everyone with capacity should have access to the means of productions that they need in order to produce, and it shouldn't be based on the arbitrary dictates of being born into a wealthy family that allows you the opportunity to take initiative.
Anyways, those are some of the directions of Steiner's observation and how they touch on libertarianism.
I'd definitely recommend the Stephen Aron's paper. But I wonder what you think about what's really my main argument. Yes, the language of the "human soul" and "development" and the "sphere of intellect and spirit" is all important, it gives the ideas greater clarity, but the main argument is simply that the First Amendment is fundamentally all about the individual's freedom of thought, which government schools can't help but infringe upon. Do you think there's a different way of interpreting the First Amendment? - that's it's not about freedom of thought, but about some other principle? And do you think that government schools can possibly say that they're not shaping and influencing the thoughts of individuals? I know they say "we're not telling people what to think, but how to think," but that's just splitting hairs. Every choice about curriculum - about what to teach and how to teach it - is determining what children learn and think.
Thanks for your thoughts! I'd be interested if you can see a different way of understanding these things that you think holds water. All the best - Seth