From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 7:30 AM To: bahai-request@bcca.org Cc: fglaysh@hotmail.com Subject: Subscription fglaysh@hotmail.com Glaysher, Frederick Announce;BINS;BCF;Discuss;Helping;Homeschool;Singles;Teachers;Tech;Women;Youth;Read ings;Race U.S. 0084057 I prefer not disclosing any address information. I would like to subscribe to all of the following lists, indicated, perhaps, above: Baha'i Announce (Announce) BINS (BINS) Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Tech (Tech) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Readings (Readings) - this is not Baha'i only, but you may subscribehere. Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 10:47 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: re: RE: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga: an informal In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 11 Sep 97 at 13:02, Rick Schaut wrote: > From: Rick Schaut > To: "'pierceed@csus.edu'" , > bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us, talisman@umich.edu > Subject: RE: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga: an informal poll > Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:02:31 -0700 >... the appropriate action > is to sit down and write a letter to either the Canadian National > Spiritual Assembly or the Universal House of Justice expressing those > concerns and asking for a clarification of the principles involved. Rick, As usual, thanks for the feedback. Sorry I haven't had time to pursue unresolved questions arising from previous threads several weeks ago. According to a source close to the Canada NSA (who does not wish to be identified), the Canada NSA really was not involved, except that in the end the Canada NSA wrote the letter to MM informing him of the action of the Univeral House of Justice. Again, according to this Canadian source, MM's "removal" was such a serious matter that the Canada NSA *would not have had the authority* to carry it out by itself (even if it had been aware of the details, which it wasn't). I'm being slightly ironic here, but the problem with writing to the BWC about a matter such as this is that it might get you "removed" from membership. But obviously I personally have somewhat greater reason to worry than most folks! Several months ago, after a great deal of heartfelt consultation with a distinguished group of concerned colleagues from diverse backgrounds, a Baha'i academic submitted a set of suggestions about lessening tensions between "scholars" and "administrators", primarily revolving around the need for the House to issue a "hands off" policy to both "sides". In response, the House characterized western academia as being materialistic, and referred the academic to the so called "Individual Rights" letter. Let me know if you would like me to try to get permission to privately forward the letters to you. EP - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 11:36 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: politics of truth/ Re: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga In the Baha'i Studies List today: John, As always, and especially given your exemplary and humble rugged individualism, it is a great pleasure to hear from you. I hope to see you at Bosch in a few weeks. I have gotten so buried with personal email at home that I know I lost track of some stuff we were talking about a while ago, I hope we get a chance to catch up. Given your long interest in legal issues and Baha'i administration, I wanted to take advantage of your expertise and explicitly ask something that seems to be lurking between the lines in these discussions. Are Baha'i authorities required (by scripture, precedence, etc.) to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" to the best of their ability when an individual asks a question such as the one Rick has suggested? If so, is it possible that telling the whole truth will come into conflict with their duty to protect the Faith? This is aside from the issue of an individual who has to deal with their own case and complications arising from confidentiality vs. "due process" issues. Thanks, EP On 11 Sep 97 at 14:44, John B. Cornell wrote: > Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:44:12 -0700 > From: "John B. Cornell" > To: Rick Schaut > Copies to: "'pierceed@csus.edu'" , > bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us, talisman@umich.edu > Subject: Re: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga: an informal poll ... > > The paragraph quoted below is an example of exactly what I > > feared would happen. > > Why should anyone fear expression of personal opinion? > Isn't it agreed that we all have a right to our own opinions? ... > > If anyone has > > any concerns, and they are quite valid concerns, the appropriate action > > is to sit down and write a letter to either the Canadian National > > Spiritual Assembly or the Universal House of Justice expressing those > > concerns and asking for a clarification of the principles involved. > > Haven't umpteen letters already been written the past year? > What clarification of what principles do you think are needed? > > John - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 1:13 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Poll and Speculation; In Hands of UHJ In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, all, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I notice a great deal of talk on the reasons that I was notified, without warning, that my name had been removed from the membership rolls of the Baha'i community. I have not read many of the posts. However, having glanced at some, including one announcing a poll on the issue, I would like to make the following statement. My understanding is that the Universal House of Justice did not refuse to provide specific reasons for stating that I could no longer be considered a Baha'i. What was communicated through the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada was that the Universal House of Justice does not respond to correspondence shared with e-mail lists. As I, personally, consider it degrading both to the human station, and to the Supreme Institution of the Baha'i Faith to conduct such matters in the dark, in secret, in the manner of autocratic tyrannies, favouring this opportunity for intimidation and injustice, a perception possibly confirming the assessment by the Universal House of Justice that I am not a member of the Baha'i community, I felt I could not take the opportunity to write another letter without sharing it with the lists. However, on Sunday morning I received a copy of an e-mail message sent to the Universal House of Justice by a person who has never been a Baha'i, nor a participant in Baha'i cyberspace, a social activist, a member of this country's Green Party, one frequently writing to various levels of government here to urge progressive action. Although I know this person very well, this message was not sent at my behest, and it so moved me that I responded with a message to the Universal House of Justice, and to the sender of the original message. I will interpret very broadly the words communicated by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada, and say nothing about the contents of these two messages. However, the response by the Universal House of Justice may render the extensive speculation in this thread and poll unnecessary. Fare very Well, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 8:53 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: fwd: "Expulsion" in Baha'i Usage (fwd) In the Baha'i Studies List today: FYI (forwarded from H-Bahai via irfan1@umich.edu). I though the last item about a (Sandanista?) Baha'i being expelled for arranging arms shipments, and the USA NSA apologizing to Samoza was interesting! EP ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram To: irfan Subject: "Expulsion" in Baha'i Usage (fwd) I have been asked by Iskandar Hai to forward this recent H-Bahai posting to Irfan: There has been some confusion expressed recently on several Baha'i email lists as to whether "expulsion" from membership is a new sanction available to the Baha'i administration. A number of these posts have stated an understanding that the only previous sanctions were removal of administrative rights or being declared a covenant breaker and there has been a tendency toward conflating "expulsion" with the latter. However, this confusion simply illustrates once more the Baha'i community's lack of knowledge of it's own history and the bases on which it is supposed to function. "Expulsion" is both a long established administrative usage and quite distinct from being declared a covenant breaker. The most recent of the sanctions is actually the removal of administrative rights. This concept required the prior development of the idea of a set of administrative rights and previous to that an administrative system in which such rights might be exercised. The early Western Baha'i community maintained two basic types of lists: Lists of names and addresses of people who wished to be notified of Baha'i activities; and lists of "members" (however this concept was operationalized in particular instances) of Baha'i communities. The distinctive purpose of the latter was that it served as an electoral roll that delimited who could vote or be voted for as local elected bodies became established. Thus, the beginning of lists and the operationalization of "membership" occurred initially in local, face to face, community contexts. The first intercommunity lists were of mail contacts for the spread of news nationally, and internationally, and the subscription lists of Baha'i periodicals -- the latter not necessarily being limited to "members" of Baha'i communities. As the national convention of the Bahai Temple Unity developed in the 'teens in North America, and particularly in association with the intra- and inter-community disputes of 1915-1919, a national concern with the validity of local membership in relation to seating and voting rights of BTU convention delegates arose. This led to a quasi-official 'national' endeavor to limit community boundaries more explicitly in relation to doctrinal viewpoints and organizational allegiance. When communication was fully restored with 'Abdu'l-Baha after the war, he declined to support most of the attempted exclusions of individuals that had occurred and tried to direct the Baha'is toward expansionist and inclusive goals. Only in a very few cases did he draw hard community lines that placed named individuals outside the community. Within the North American Baha'i community, whatever the doctrinal rhetoric in which these disputes were framed, the main practical issue was one of access to control of community policy and resources. "Membership" was still essentially about the right to vote or be voted for. As the Executive Committee of the BTU reformulated itself as the NSA of the Baha'is of the United States and Canada, one of the issues dealt with in the Declaration of Trust under which it assumed a legal identity in 1926 was that of membership. In Article I of the By-Laws appended to the Declaration of Trust, authority was given to the NSA for "scrutiny of local membership rolls" and "the right of final decision in all cases where the qualifications of an individual or group for continued voting rights and membership in the Baha'i body is in question." And in Article II Baha'is are defined as "persons...who are recognized by the National Spiritual Assembly as having fulfilled the requirements of voting membership in a local Baha'i community." These requirements are spelled out as being resident within the jurisdiction of an LSA, being at least 21, and having "established to the satisfaction of the local Spiritual Assembly, subject to the approval of the National Spiritual Assembly, that he possesses the qualifications of Baha'i faith and practice, required under the following standard: Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner (the Bab), the Author (Baha'u'llah), and 'Abdu'l-Baha the True Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause: unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred _Will_; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of present-day Baha'i administration throughout the world." In Article VII Section 6, the LSA is given authority to "pass upon and approve the qualifications of each member of the Baha'i community before such members shall be admitted to voting membership; but where an individual is dissatisfied with the ruling of the local Spiritual Assembly upon his Baha'i qualifications, such individual may appeal from the ruling to the National Assembly, which shall thereupon take jurisdiction of and finally decide the case." In Section 7 of the same Article, the LSA Secretary is required to annually send to the NSA Secretary "a duly certified list of the voting members of the local Baha'i community for the information and approval of the National Assembly." We can see how "membership" is essentially about voting, and defining and controlling membership is about establishing the parameters of an electorate. It would also seem from the foregoing that membership/voting is limited to those who live within the jurisdiction of an LSA. But, not withstanding the earlier explicit language, Section 12 of Article VII, after defining the "sphere of jurisdiction" of an LSA as limited to the civil boundaries goes on to state "but Baha'is who reside in adjacent, outlying or suburban districts and can regularly attend the meetings of the local Baha'i community, may be enrolled on the membership list of the adjacent Spiritual Assembly and enjoy full voting rights pending the establishment of a local Assembly in their home community." This section concludes by again reserving to the NSA the final decision on the affiliation of any Baha'i. There is an ambiguity in the use of the term "Baha'i" in Section 12. As by earlier usage in the By-Laws one could only become a Baha'i while living in the jurisdiction of an LSA it could be argued that this section only refers to previously enrolled Baha'is who had moved to an area outside an LSA jurisdiction. For it to mean that an LSA can enroll _for the first time_ an individual who lives outside any LSA area of jurisdiction would require the first usage of "Baha'is" in this section to be a more open definition than that used otherwise in the document. We should also note that the term "Baha'i" was not at all used consistently in the manner defined in this document by the NSA in the late 1920s. In fact, at least once the NSA took the position that "Baha'is" were people who accepted the social teachings of the faith and that "Believers" were people who accepted the "Manifestation." Thus, if a community had nine "Baha'is" it could not form an Assembly: That required nine "Believers"! Such inconsistency in terminology is not uncommon in NSA documents (or letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi) and goes well beyond the simple fact that words change denotations and connotations over time. It is very unlikely to lead to a valid analysis to assume consistency of usage without further investigation when using texts associated with the Baha'i community. Under Article VIII, voting for Convention delegates is provided for within each local community on the basis of the LSA membership roll. And finally, Article IX states that in all cases where the By-Laws give final jurisdiction to the NSA "it is understood that any decision made or action taken upon such matters shall be subject in every instance to ultimate review and approval by the Guardian of the Cause or the Universal House of Justice." Thus, "membership" was first and foremost a local matter, but under national oversight; and like all national matters was subject to the ultimate oversight of the Guardian or House. Furthermore, membership (=voting rights) was not a one time thing but remained subject to ongoing NSA approval and thus by definition approval by the Guardian/House. The control of membership was further explicated by the NSA in a Baha'i News (132:p.3) statement of 1940 on the "twofold authority involved in the question of voting membership in the Baha'i community." The statement brings up an apparent discrepancy between the By-Laws which grant full authority to the LSA on local matters and the provision in _Baha'i Procedure_ that requires an LSA to refer the matter of removing names from the voting list to the NSA. To demonstrate that this does not involve a discrepancy the NSA points out that an LSA may exercise "original jurisdiction" over admission to the voting list "because the Guardian has laid down a set of qualifications of membership which is uniform throughout the entire country" and this provides the LSA "with a clear and simple code." Although there are "general qualifications" regarding removal there is nothing that can readily be applied in a uniform manner. Thus, to prevent inconsistency of application influenced by local factors, the NSA "retains the right and duty to give definite permission before the local Assembly can either suspend or expel any member of the Baha'i community." Thus, the original administrative concern in membership lists was about controlling the parameters of the community's electoral roll. LSAs could bring people onto the roll, subject to the oversight of the NSA, itself subject to the oversight of the Guardian/House. The NSA could "suspend" or "expel" people from the roll, subject to the oversight of the Guardian/House. That the NSA could "suspend" someone from membership is what later developed into the concept of the removal of administrative rights -- earlier simply called removal of voting rights. The only 'right' associated with membership originally was electoral. The development of a package of rights (attending feast, giving to the fund, going on pilgrimage, publicly representing the faith, etc.) occurred later as the Baha'i community institutionalized firmer boundaries and a exclusivist concept of "membership" in the 1930s and after. But the nucleus of this congerie of rights remained electoral and the "membership" lists the electoral roll. Thus, it was important for these lists to actually represent the community in order to be able to plan for the expansion and maintenance of elected bodies. The US NSA used its perogative to "expel" (to remove permanently from the membership lists) on a large scale several times when Shoghi Effendi asked them to produce a realistic roll as a basis for planning. (One of these purges cut the list by such a large percentage that Shoghi Effendi asked for a detailed explanation of the size of the reduction and why the list had been allowed to accumulate so many questionable entries: Should the list not be more regularly maintained to give an accurate picture of the community's strength?) The NSA also used its power to "suspend" membership as a disciplinary tool in individual cases. However, the use of the power to "expel" tended to be less visible. Someone who was suspended remained connected to the community and was expected to regularize their position and regain full membership. In the interim it was necessary for there to be some knowledge in the community of their disadvantaged status for the sanctioning to be implemented. But if expulsion was threatened and that caused the individual to reconsider a course of action, then this process did not need to become known outside the administration -- it had achieved its purpose and was over. It is also possible that detailed analysis may show that suspension had its own tendency toward expulsion as a suspended individual who did not regularize their situation might after a number of years be dropped from the roll permanently in one of the periodic large scale expulsions. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis and could have provided a less abrasive way to permanently remove individuals than would have been the case with a direct personal expulsion. Note, I am suggesting this as a possible cumulative effect of the process rather than a conscious policy. As a corollary, one might suggest the possibility that the more recent policy of removal of administrative rights and no large scale expulsions could lead to a build up of technical community members who are in tension with the administration. (In parentheses -- as I don't have the documents at hand to cite -- let me give two examples of expulsion as it is so little known. After a very prominent and wealthy Baha'i died, his widow was not happy with the disposition of his estate in his will and was threatening to dispute the will in court. Shoghi Effendi informed the NSA that he had apprised her that as she knew that the will represented her husband's wishes accurately, and that as testamentary dispositions were sacred to Baha'is, that if she disputed the will she would be expelled. She did not take legal action. While the US NSA had jurisdiction over all of Latin America, a university professor became a Baha'i. His enrollment was considered to be quite a catch and he was frequently used as a travel teacher. After a failed attempt to overthrow Somoza, it was discovered that the professor was one of the coup leaders (he was to become Minister of Education if the coup had succeeded); and that while he was on his Baha'i teaching trips he had also been making the arrangemnets for the arms needed for the coup. The US NSA wrote a letter of apology to Somoza explaining that the professor's actions were incompatible with being a Baha'i and thus he was no longer a member of the community.) R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 9:07 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: fwd (Cole): heresy baiting and the future of the Faith In the Baha'i Studies List today: ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:06:22 -0400 To: talisman@umich.edu From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: heresy baiting and the future of the Faith Josh has told me that he has received some troubling forwards about a certain list member essentially accusing someone else on Talisman of being a heretic. As you all know, this is not allowed, and if it happens again he says there will be consequences. This subject leads me to say some things about the current juncture the Baha'i faith is going through. I think it is fair to say that the Information Revolution has been very hard on the Baha'i leadership. It has suddenly allowed the expression of individual opinions, the emergence of public controversy, the spreading around of information the leadership would rather see repressed, glimpses into the true nature of Baha'i governance (that it is highly authoritarian), and the beginnings of a public opinion that might end up successfully putting pressure on the leadership to alter some of their policies. In the old Print world, things were much easier. Most opinions remained private. The old joke was that anyone could own a newspaper in a democracy. All you needed was a million dollars. Literature Review could be used to ensure that only official opinions (which is to say, the opinions of officials) could be aired in print. Communication was very top down. The American Baha'i went out to a few tens of thousands of households, and nothing was expected to come back except obedience. The system was that, essentially, of a one-party state. Like all one-party states, the Baha'i administration is extremely worried about the internet and the Web. But its worries have only just begun. Because information is getting cheaper to acquire and transmit, at *exponential* rates. In the summer of 1996 I needed a $3000 computer and basic HTML code writing skills to run a Web page. A better computer than the one I had then can now be had for $1200 and falling. And there are increasingly easy wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) programs for setting up Web pages that do not involve so much as knowing that makes for italics. Chips are getting cheaper by the minute. That means processing bytes of information is also. The cyberspace communities that have grown up, like Talisman, Irfan, Bahai-St., H-Bahai and others are only the beginning. When Web tv becomes a mass market item these will explode in numbers and effect. The gentlemen who run the Baha'i faith make no secret of being absolutely horrified at this outbreak of free speech and cheap communication. Their idea of the Baha'i faith is that it is a mechanism for preventing controversy and for controlling speech and for projecting the monopoly on discourse and power within the community of the "administrative order" (which they just happen to control, as lifetime incumbents). Probably this was always an unrealistic idea in a voluntary organization that aspired to being a world religion. Tight control and significant growth just don't go hand in hand. Moreover, this kind of system *always* fosters corruption and inefficiency, dooming it. That the US Baha'i administration was largely incapable of taking full advantage of the openness to the faith obvious among tens of thousands of Americans in the 1970s only proves my point. The new Information Age is the biggest revolution in human affairs since the advent of movable type metal cast printing in the 1450s. But note that there were winners and losers in that printing revolution. The Western Europeans allowed printing and benefitted enormously from the spread of scientific and technological knowledge and literacy that it allowed. The Muslim sultans recoiled from printing for almost exactly the same reasons as the Baha'i authorities are now recoiling from cyberspace, and they banned it. As a result, the Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred in Europe, as did great technical advances that left the Muslim world in the dust. Muslims were demoted from being bearers of a great world civilization to being largely illiterate and relatively backward, only even getting the news about the earth going around the sun in the 19th century. In the same way, those religious communities who embrace the new information technologies will gain powerful means to project themselves in the world. Those, like the Hare Krishnas, the Watchtower, and the Baha'is, who mainly see the Information Highway as a policing problem on which free discourse must be squelched, will remain small sects and perhaps disappear altogether. But it might be objected that if the Baha'i authorities let go and allow Baha'i cyberspace to flourish unimpeded, that it will put the unity of the religion in danger and weaken the authority of the central institutions. These are not completely unfounded fears. But they are largely unfounded. In fact, by flailing around accusing its scholars of verbal covenant breaking or declaring its devoted servants "not Baha'is," the Baha'i institutions are only making themselves look ridiculous and small minded, and are undermining their authority within significant elements of the community. The right response is to have the same courage the Indian nsa had when mass conversions began there in the 1960s. It decided to let chain conversion run its course, and to open things up. This is the opposite decision of the one the US nsa made around 1971, when it was decided to undermine the mass teaching by shifting resources to consolidation instead. The difference in outcomes is obvious. India claims 2 million Baha'is, and even if that is an exaggeration, there are still lots and lots of Baha'is there. The US claims 130,000, which is a phony figure deriving from Wilmette's propensity to simply raise its claims rather than bothering with real teaching. People sometimes complain that I have become so negative about the Baha'i administration that I offer no positive advice on how to deal with the problems. But this *is* my advice. Open it up. Call off the doberman pinschers. Nothing bad will happen. The same nsa was elected in Ridvan, 1997 as had been elected in the Ridvans before, despite the negative press that resulted from the crackdown on Talisman I. But if all that negative press could not affect the outcome of the election, then how could Talisman I's continuation have done so? Talisman was irrelevant. Coming after its prominent posters was unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, was a stupid mistake. Dropping Mike McKenny from the rolls was an even more stupid mistake. Since Baha'is will be in increasing communication in cyberspace (see above), they cannot help expressing their views, but now they will feel that Big Brother is looking over their shoulders. And Big Brother is sometimes feared; he is never loved. Perhaps in the hothouse and cloistered atmospheres of Wilmette and Haifa, it is easy to forget that institutions can squander their popularity. Before 1967 the Pope was universally loved and respected in the US Catholic community. Then he issued the ban on condoms, making himself both intrusive and ridiculous, and now only half of US Catholics say they even pay any attention to him on such issues. The current uhj's Inquisition against a mild-mannered Canadian fantasy writer is similar in form. It is ridiculous and intrusive. And in the end such actions will cause the Baha'is to hold their institutions in contempt. That there was a 60% fall-off in contributions to the international fund from the US community in 1996, the same year in which the uhj came after the talisman posters, may not entirely be a coincidence. The Baha'i institutions were not designed to control the *opinions* of adherents. In fact, `Abdu'l-Baha explicitly says that opinions may be freely expressed, and only behavior is punishable. Making internet speech into punishable "behavior" is breaking with this covenant `Abdu'l-Baha made with free and thinking human beings who had seen the excesses of religion and wanted no more religions like that. The uhj should stick to legislating, which is its only legitimate role, not interpretation of scripture and deciding whether McKenny's interpretation is the right one. Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab, by their arrogance and narrow-mindedness, have turned the Baha'i faith into just another inquisitorial religion, distinguished from past ones only in preferring psychological to physical torture of dissidents. If the Baha'is are unleashed to deploy the full power of the internet, to catch the wave of the Information juggernaut, they can hope to amount to something in the coming century. Except in the narrow field of posting translations of scripture, more has been accomplished with regard to making information available about the Baha'i faith on the Web by Juan Cole, Jonah Winter and Don Calkin, three individuals, than has been by all the Baha'i institutions put together. If the Baha'i institutions go on behaving like the elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, then that is the sort of religious organization they will be. And the stagnating 30,000 American Baha'i Witnesses can sit around into the 21st century and congratulate themselves for the rest of their lives on how loyal to the Covenant they are and how wicked the other 270,000,0000 Americans are, who have joined religions focused on unleashing their individual potential rather than on repressing it. cheers Juan - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 5:02 PM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: fwd (not Cole): early problems between hierarchy and scholars In the Baha'i Studies List today: The below link provides interesting references to a pattern of conflict between progressive scholars and fundamentalist elements long before the hippy, non-conformist, etc. 1960s academics came on the scene. EP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (17-September-1997) http://www.interlog.com/~winters/articles/zuhur.html ... Fadil-i Mazandarani is undoubtedly among the most devoted Baha'is of the twentieth century who on numerous occasions has received incomparable expressions of love and appreciation from Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. His historic services stretched well over half a century and spanning three continents in places as far as Iran, India, North America and Europe, and in fields as diverse as teaching, deepening, scholarship, collection of Text and protection of the Faith, remains a shining examples for those who aspire to serve this noble Cause. Therefore, one is deeply saddened to note that after his passing, "The Baha'i World", volume 13, does not carry a "In Memoriam" article honoring this remarkable figure of the Faith. As such, it is with utmost humility that I respectfully request of the Universal House of Justice to address itself, should they consider the matter worthy of their precious time, to publish a belated "In Memoriam" article honoring the noble life and deeds of Jinab-i Fadil, and to redress the grave injustices which befell this outstanding figure of our Faith in latter phase of his life. I can think of very few other believers of this century who have rendered comparable serviced to the Cause of the Ancient Beauty as Fadil-i Mazandarani has. Many Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha and the beloved Guardian amply testify to this fact. Though some forty years has lapsed since his passing, it is my profound hope, and the hope of many others who seek knowledge, that the Supreme Body will take steps to restore a ruined reputation and to once again honor a peerless scholar and teacher of the Faith. Further, as a sign of our fidelity to the memory of the beloved Guardian, I ask the Universal House of Justice that the Guardian's specific instruction for the Jinab-i Fadil to be numbered among those ranked as a Hand of the Cause of God, be graciously instituted. Additionally, if I may be so bold, permit me to request that steps be taken to truly honor the memory of Fadil through publication of his greatest contribution to the scholarship of Faith, the nine volume series of Zuhuru'l-Haqq. I believe that publication of the seven remaining volumes of this masterpiece will provide fresh impetus for serious study of our history and offer a superb model of scholarly achievement for all the students of the Cause, both present and future generations, to emulate. ... A.R. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Ahang Rabbani (281) 586-2524[SMTP:Ahang.Rabbani@usa.dupont.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:48 AM To: BAHAI-ST@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Fadil-i-Mazandarani/was: early problems between hierar... In the Baha'i Studies List today: I was asked by Dr. Hai to comment on Fadil-i Mazandarani and as such I share this blind post with Bahai-St, and I do so with trepidation as I do not wish to be drawn in this debate. The facts that were presented by Dr. Hai, himself the scion of a household dedicated to Baha'i scholarship, are indeed what I understand them as well. However, I would say the fact that Fadil remained active in teaching field to his very last breath is a testimony to the nobility of his spirit and the unparallel zeal for the promotion of the Cause that burnt in his soul. After all, he had been a truly exceptional apostle of Abdu'l-Baha and the most dedicated of all Baha'i teachers his entire life, therefore it was only fitting for his to pass away in the course of a travel teaching trip. But it is also undeniable that his important works continue to be suppress to this day! And yes, there were prominent Baha'is on the Iranian NSA and other circles who were out to get him -- and for their deeds they must bear the shame. In fact, its is rather sad to note that to this day their efforts to eradicate the name of Fadil continues very actively. Fadil's monumental history of the Cause, his nearly 7000 page Zuhuru'l-Haqq series, remains unpublished to this day (except the vol 3 and 8, with vol 8 not being very significant). As early as last year, when the World Centre was requested permission for the publication of further volumes of this series, it was denied! His other monumental work, the 12 volume series of Asraru'l-Athar-i Umumi, is also under lock and chain and God only knows if it ever be published. And the fact that his 5 vol. series, Asraru'l-Athar-i Khususi is now being "reworked" by Dr. Muhammad-Husayni is only an effort to reduce Fadil's presence in literary heritage of the Faith. His other histories of the Faith has never been published or made available in any way. He was elevated to the rank of the Hand of the Cause of God in late 1930's by Shoghi Effendi, but has anyone ever seen a list of the Hands where Fadil is mentioned also? No! One can go on and list many other factors why Fadil's work and memory is being actively suppressed but the greatest testimony is perhaps Fadil's own children who witnessed the treatment that their father received and decided they don't want to have anything to do with the Faith. I know this as his son lives here in Houston and I have spoken at length with him about these issues. The lesson to be drawn by the present generation of Baha'is from the tragic case of Fadil is one of actively eliminating intolerance and welcoming diversity of views. Fadil was a victim because he dared to write history incongruent with the Dawn-breakers; let us pray that we are wiser than the Iranian NSA of fifty years ago and that our vision is loftier than those of bygone ages. yrs, ahang. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 3:14 PM To: sfotos@gol.com Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re Heresy and Reason For Expulsion 3 In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Sandy, from Ottawa. Many thanks for your comments on this topic. On the specific point connected with Michael McKenny, I would just like to say that there was no secret correspondence between me and the Universal House of Justice, containing material not available on these e-mail lists. I recently provided under the title "Reason For Expulsion Number One" and "Reason For Expulsion Number Two", the two chief messages I addressed to the Universal House of Justice in the months prior to my expulsion, my carefully composed letter of March 23rd, and the response I made to the covering letter of the answer from the Universal House of Justice. I have been unable to locate my copy of a message I sent, I believe in May, in response to a statement on one of these lists that that poster felt he or she was being reported to the Universal House of Justice. I'm pretty sure my message was also posted to the list on which I read the complaint and the original message. What I wrote was that my reading of the original message was that it was an obscure question being presented to the Universal House of Justice, and not snitching on the person complaining. I added that the atmosphere in which it was felt one could be reported to the Universal House of Justice, as if by Soviet style informants was an indication of a problem, and that it would be a good idea to remind us all of the importance of the freedom of thought, understanding and expression in the Baha'i vision for the attainment of human harmony. This is from memory after four months. If Eric or someone has the actual message maybe it can be sent to me, and I will delete the names and post it. Please be careful about simply posting material which may even be from Irfan which has rules about forwarding material without the consent of the poster. I am only interested in posting my own material, so what I wrote to the Universal House of Justice may be seen for what it is, and the hypothesis of additional secret stuff laid to rest. If my faulty memory has me forgetting other messages I sent to the Universal House of Justice at the time specified in the letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada to me, I would be astounded were any such produced which contained material I have not shared on these lists, that is thoughts and understandings of mine you are not already quite familiar with. I believe it is a quite credible hypothesis that it was precisely because I am a relatively articulate and outspoken liberal, one with a fairly convincing position that even if this issue of rijal and the General House of Justice of Chicage did not exist, the fundamental Baha'i principle of the equality of the sexes would take precedence over any particular passage soever seeming to exempt Baha'is from following fundamental Baha'i principle, precisely because I stated openly such views in cyberspace that my name was removed from the Baha'i membership rolls. I find it fascinating that unknowingly I addressed the ad hominems thread the evening before I received the expulsion notice and said that it was what was said, always subject to verification that mattered and not who said it, for example the fact I have a degree in Classics is of no import, but if I name Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenephon as historians prior to Alexander the Great the fact, their books, may be verified in the library. In addition although I remain convinced of the above, those who seem so very preoccupied with the person uttering something have now provided Baha'i cyberspace with a person who is now a pagan, very able to address the issue of the intolerance of monotheistic systems, both in early history, and contemporary affairs. The fact that I am becoming more and more involved in pagan thought and activity does not make preoccupation with persons rather than facts any more valid, nor the above provision any more effective a means of silencing liberal thought, even were such silencing in agreement with fundamental Baha'i principle, which it isn't. I will repeat my statement made a week ago that on Sunday September 7th a message was sent to the Universal House of Justice by one who has never been a Baha'i, nor a participant in Baha'i cyberspace, and that this drew a reply from me to the person who sent that message, and to the Universal House of Justice. When the Universal House of Justice answers this correspondence, further speculation on the reasons of my expulsion may become unnecessary May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael Regarding Mr. Mckenny, I don't believe that his situation was due to participation on email lists or nets, but rather to information contained in his private correspondence with the Universal House of Justice. I therefore question why his situation is presented to "prove" censorship of cyberactivities. Sandy Fotos -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 1:57 AM To: sfotos@gol.com Cc: Bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; Talisman@umich.edu; Jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re Heresy, Reason 3 and Optimism In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Sandy, from Ottawa. Many thanks for your further comments on this topic. Firstly, the chief factual intent of my response to you was to counteract the suggestion from your post that there was some other content, unshared with these e-mail lists, but included in "private" correspondence of mine to the Universal House of Justice, and this unknown material explains the expulsion. As to me "trying to find out the real facts" of the expulsion, before entertaining thoughts on the matter, I have now written three letters to the Universal House of Justice concerning the reasons for my expulsion, and I am not the only one who has written. At present the information is that it had something to do with attitude and behaviour as demonstrated by correspondence. There is nothing in the correspondence to the Universal House of Justice you have not had the opportunity to read here, along with everyone else. I ought to make it clear that it is a fact that in May one of the members of one of these lists felt an e-mail message to the Universal House of Justice was the report by a snitch of that member's supposedly unorthodox views. It is a fact that I stated to the Universal House of Justice that I did not consider such a feeling accurate, and that I felt the existence of that feeling was proof we needed more clearly to appreciate the importance of the freedom of thought, understanding and expression contained fundamentally in the Baha'i Faith. I have to add that it was precisely because I did not have a negative attitude toward the Baha'i Faith, nor of its Institutions, including the Universal House of Justice, that I spoke my mind very freely, that I consulted with Auxiliary Board Member Mrs. Suzanne Tamas in January, and that I followed her suggestion and wrote completely openly to the Universal House of Justice. My intent stated openly on these lists, on which I invited anyone who wished to send any post soever of mine to the Universal House of Justice, was to demonstrate that there is freedom of thought, understanding and expression within the Baha'i Faith, and to show those presenting a vision of the tyrannical Rulers of the Faith to be wrong. I was aware of the quite powerful and beneficial energy latent within this Faith, and I had imbibed the Baha'i viewpoint of not seeing enemies, but only friends. And, I do not believe such a Baha'i view invalid, now that I am in a post-Baha'i state. In my opinion, there is no necessity for the Baha'i Faith to undergo a thousand years of pre-Baha'i attitudes concerning friends and foes, ins and outs, personalities and factions, nor all the methods of suppression and control which caused religion to be called "the opium of the people." I decided to act as if the Universal House of Justice were more advanced than that. My message to the Universal House of Justice on March 23rd was intended clearly to convey the information that there is no more important matter to move on to before addressing the necessity to follow fundamental Baha'i principle, and recognize that women have to be eligible for service to the Universal House of Justice. The persistence in current discriminatory policy is incompatible with the harmony of humanity. There are male chauvinists, and there are fundamentalists, and there are bigots, and there are martyrs with the spirit of self-sacrifice, soldiers in the army of light who can be counted on to accept anything at all. I think it is time these humbly accept they do not compose, and never will, the totality of the human spectrum. The majority of our population in the West, and especially our most progressive people, the ones most apt to accept the principles of the Baha'i Faith, as a block regard the Baha'i Faith as a hypocritical and false religion, when they learn of this discrimination, and it is, in my opinion not an appropriate Baha'i response, as one of my fundamentalist friends conveyed to me, to gleefully write off the West, and especially America, as expendable. I have encountered more prejudice against America on Baha'i cyberspace than I ever encountered from our most fervent Canadian nationalists. The exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice is a non-starter. It is unacceptable. It prevents the harmony of the species. It squanders all the good feeling people had for those obviously nice people being killed by Islamic fundamentalists. The blood of the martyrs in Iran has flowed for nothing, and the Most Great Peace is unattainable, until there are women on the Universal House of Justice. Or, the spiritual energy which led to the fall of the Berlin Wall can be transmuted to a prayer for the resumption of hostility, for some kind of Catastrophe to knock some of this modern nonsense out of American skulls and bring us in line with fundamentalist values of paternalism, patriarchy and a military style of life where the morality of the mature human being is summed up in the word, "Obedience." It takes a special brand of spiritual being to entertain such expectations, and pray such prayers. As to shooting the child, my assessment is that likely an interstellar observer, conscious of the history of this planet, and the vast potential for intolerant monotheism to impose such a male military mindset on the planet by such enervating means as Dr. Friberg's repetition ("repetition being a very sound way of influencing people's thinking") of the control mechanism that the world cannot be moved, that principle cannot be followed, that patriarchy is a given, that literalist fundementalism is the order of the millennium, would quite understandably recommend that civilized galactic society anticipate this planet becoming a hive of wasps, and to prepare to react accordingly, or even to take pre-emptive action. In my view, nothing more closely corresponds to shooting the child than for the persistence of hardline attitudes and an unwillingness to implement fundamental Baha'i principles. It should not be forgotten that often what is first argued to be necessary on the grounds of it being temporary, then becomes argued as being an unchangeable condition. It is a basic fact of life that there is change. Everything progress or declines. I am not negative. I believe humanity can progress. That optimistic attitude has been the major influence on my behaviour for all the time I have been here. I remain optimistic that those who are at present the Baha'i Patriarchs can overcome the weight of negativity represented by the energy-draining words of Dr. Friberg and resist the common corruption of power, emulate the Hands of the Cause and implement the Baha'i principles required for the blood of the martyrs of Persia to have any real meaning, for the true growth of the Tree of the Most Great Peace. It is a terribly challenging goal, a quite difficult test of ego. However, if the alternative is bashing America, contending with freedom of thought, conscience and expression, seeking to impose a single fundamentalist mindset on a species divinely endowed with such diversity that witch-finders, inquisitioners, gas chambers and gulags ultimately failed, and presenting your neighbours in space with a hive of wasps, then, perhaps, letting it be this generation that resolves to move the world will seem much more possible. Nothing worthwile, and in accord with fundamental Baha'i principle is impossible. All that is required is for knowledge, volition and action. Live Long and Prosper, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Quanta Dawn-Light[SMTP:quanta@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 5:40 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca; Sandra Fotos Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Re Heresy and Reason For Expulsion 3 In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dearest Sandy, If, I am understanding you correctly you are putting the blame of the "politics of distrust" on the distrustees and not on the mistrusted ones in this case. Could you please give me fair examples why people should afford unconditional trust to the organizations you mention here? Trust is given based on the level of trustworthiness of any entity run by people, not demanded by authoritarian means. There are ample references in the Advent of Divine Justice which serve as a warning to the Baha'i Institutions in America, as to not to resemble the organizations of the past and present which cause the "politics of distrust" in the hearts of and minds of all people. love, quanta Sandy Fotos wrote: >(Stephen Freiberg) He talks > about the populist tradition, > > "which is strongly suspicious of all organizations, be it > banks, organized mercantile interests, government, or institutional > hierarchies of any kind. For example, the Catholic church with its > worldwide organizational structure is particularly distrusted. > American politics is now dominated by this type of very conservative > "politics of distrust." I think that this attitude is abundantly > apparent in many of the ways that some of the Baha'is address the > Baha'i institutions." - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 12:07 PM To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp; pierceed@csus.edu Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! In the Baha'i Studies List today: Well, this is impressive! Some really good posts from various *sides* on this issue. I think Quanta, Eric, Stephen, Auntie Sandy, Rick, Michael (of the Other) et al have all made brilliant points. I am proud to know and wrestle with all of you. I can understand, to a significant degree, Eric's frustration. I think he is correct when he discusses *mindsets*. The Guardian, no less, warned us repeatedly of our *conservative nature* of our being infected with the same *spiritual illness* that afflicts the larger American community, and what causes me the most anxiety, from Citadel of Faith, those *nefarious elements* seeking to undermine the Faith from within. There is little doubt that there is a mindset that will do everything possible to shut people up. If one does bring out well reasoned evidence of problems within the Community one is usually labeled a *disunifying* element, that one is being *negative* etc. Unity too often is synonymous with *uniformity*. It is easy to understand how this has come about - from our Christian background. the congregation doesn't make waves. Do so and you will be roundly shushed! and not invited to the next church social in the park. Where Eric and others of considerably more paranoic strain are incorrect though is to assign any of this to the Structure of the Faith. Now there is little doubt that as an organic structure it has a long way to grow. But the Structure, for all its beauty, must be peopled in order to function. If the people coming in are, to a large degree, dragging in the viruses of our society, whether of conservative or liberal nature, THAT is where we need to be looking, if we are to bring about an effectual cure. Our American Baha'i community has become increasingly *ill* because we have not followed the perscription laid down by the Guardian. We have been and continue to be incredibly insular. We talk a cute game about *entry by troops* and *preperation* etc, mimicking the Universal House of Justice, or whatever Counselor has recently come through town, but we immediately go back to the same insulating behavior. Like all good Americans (and especially Texans) we talk and talk and talk our way around the Reality of our situation. But we are to never glance toward the center, where it rests. We have done this for so long we have developed an amazing blindspot. Most of us can't even see it when it is pointed out. Seriously. Point out the history of the Cause in this country, compare this with the most blatant quotes from the Guardian concerning our Mission, and you will get a blank look from most. I have often wanted to simply give up on trying to convince the Community at large. I have been accused of every Baha'i crime in the book, right up to and allllmmmmoooost including being a cb. All from well-meaning yet ruthless Baha'is. Their ruthlessness came from fear. Wonderfully nasty letters filled with not one fact but a lot of alligations against me have been sent off to just about everyone/institution of merit. I could be bitter and angry about all this but why? We're dealing with a Community that is ill and feverish. Taking offense at the viciousness that has been directed toward me would be terribly immature and would not solve the problem. It is a frightened community. It knows, even in this fevered state, that something is terribly wrong, even though it is rarely spoken. So one must continue to try and engage the patient. If the patient can be fully engaged then it will be cured. You could hear this from Mr. Mitchell's talk which I have mentioned numerous times. The audiance was deathly quiet, not at all like they were a few days before with Dr, Khan. Mr. Mitchell asked, point blank, "Where is the Double Crusade??" Silence. This tape was SUPPOSED to be deliverd to every LSA in the US. I know of only ten people who have heard it. Even people in Wilmette know nothing of it. The patient clamps their mouth shut and refuses to take their medicine. Lastly, (I can hear Stephen esp. breathing a sigh of relief!) this is not an evolutionary process here that is being discussed. The organic growth of the Administrative Order and the Baha'i Community - yes. America's spiritual destiny, no. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 3:45 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: talk.religion.bahai I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 9:05 AM To: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! In the Baha'i Studies List today: Jim, Many thanks for your supportive comments. I have a huge workload right now (not that I'm any more coherent when I don't have a lot of work!), so excuse any shortness, disorganization or lack of clarity in my expressions. more... On 19 Sep 97 at 12:07, Alethinos@aol.com wrote: > Date sent: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:07:25 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alethinos@aol.com > To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp, pierceed@csus.edu > Copies to: talisman@umich.edu, bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! ... > I can understand, to a significant degree, Eric's frustration. I think he is > correct when he discusses *mindsets*. The Guardian, no less, warned us > repeatedly of our *conservative nature* of our being infected with the same > *spiritual illness* that afflicts the larger American community, and what > causes me the most anxiety, from Citadel of Faith, those *nefarious elements* > seeking to undermine the Faith from within. ... > There is little doubt that there is a mindset that will do everything > possible to shut people up. If one does bring out well reasoned evidence of > problems within the Community one is usually labeled a *disunifying* element, > that one is being *negative* etc. Unity too often is synonymous with > *uniformity*. It is easy to understand how this has come about - from our > Christian background. the congregation doesn't make waves. Do so and you will > be roundly shushed! and not invited to the next church social in the park. > > Where Eric and others of considerably more paranoic strain are incorrect > though is to assign any of this to the Structure of the Faith. Now there is > little doubt that as an organic structure it has a long way to grow. But the > Structure, for all its beauty, must be peopled in order to function. ... I agree almost completely Jim, and (at least in my mind) always have. I think you have a somewhat overly simple formula however. I am not a sociologist, but I think that there is a complex set of relationships between the community and institutions that need to be explicated for most of these discussions about "renewal" or "reforms" to begin to make much sense. In a nutshell, I am talking about a "culture of leadership" and a "culture of followers" where the lines are blurred, but an obvious tendency toward ritualistic privilege of hierarchy and elitism exists GENERALLY. Now, I think that it is quite possible for a legitimate (scripturally based) Baha'i viewpoint to exist that views radical egalitarianism, etc. with suspicion. That said, we also have to recognise the nefarious tendency of human beings to create articifial cultures of elitism within their organizational (sub)- cultures. As a side point, I would say that your idea that the Guardian's "nefarious elements" are the conservatives in the Baha'i community (and/or perhaps the its social/administrative heirarchy) is something that seems quite maverick. Perhaps it is the remnants of all that Baha'i brainwashing I was subjected to as a youth that prevent me from being able to fully embrace your idea! For the purposes of discussing the sociolological factors that relate to "reform" or "renewal" in the larger Baha'i (sub)culture I suggest that perhaps it might be useful to think in terms of a seperation of: 1) Baha'i institutional "structures" and the texts that define them 2) Baha'i leadership culture (bureaucracy) 3) Baha'i social/administrative hierarchy 4) Baha'i folk religion 5) Baha'i intellectual culture Of course that are many other elements and dynamics, but again, I'm no expert. In other words, there is a great deal of confusion of the institutional structures with the potentially flawed manner in which they are being operationalized. Thus many of the critics, and the critics of the critics are really incapable of breaking out of the wet bag that they feel so smothered by, and turn to self-blame and mutual vilification to express frustration. I guess that one of my main points is that by worshipping the culture of the hierarchy, its artificial elitism and rituals of privilege (which includes ritualistic and frequently pulic sacrifice of "the system's" victims), and equating this with a required "obedience" to the institutions is really quite quite unhealthy, immature and silly. On the topic of "renewal", you appear to be saying that the Guardian called for some sort of spiritual renewal in the wake of the first 20 or 30 years of the disappointing development of the american Baha'i community. This is what I would call a significant challenge to the hierarhical and artificially elitist elements in the culture of Baha'i bureaucracy. So, I guess we agree on the need for renewal. One posible area of disagreement is that I do not understand how we can get to a point where there is a better operationalization of institutional structures when dominant culture of the bureaucracy appears to be dead set on maintaining a largely closed (or at least highly limited) atmosphere of community discourse. How is it possible to see this as anything other than a mechanism of self-protection and corruption of proper electoral practice is puzzling to me. Which brings us to the issue of leadership and back to your main point. I would suggest that it isn't *just* the common/amalgamate Baha'i culture that has deficiencies, it is also the culture of leadership. In one sense they are the same, because the leadership arose from the entirety of the people. But wait! The bureaucracy and leadership culture also had/has a controlling role in how the process unfolds and the structures are, as you say, peopled. Adios, EP - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 4:18 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? Thanks, Ragna ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. ---------- I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 4:55 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. Dear Robert, I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a group like BCCA is a blessing. John ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 5:07 PM To: pierceed@csus.edu; talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! In the Baha'i Studies List today: Oh I would agree whoelheartedly with your more specific assessment... I was simply giving an overview. Sure, the love of leadership, the desire to see the John Wayne up there on the big horse leading us on, telling us what to do, the manuavering by those who do thirst for leadership - good God you can see all of this. And it wouldn't be easy to root it out. I think that may be one reason we are seeing the UHJ implement the Regional Councels, etc. We get to see new faces, new ideas. But the answer lies in doing - DOING the vision of the Guardian. Thank God that the UHJ has left open the door to individual initiative!!! The group I work with is doing that now- here in Portland and on various Native American Reservations. And the results are dramatic. Just deepening people on these two areas: the real meaning of teaching and America's spiritual destiny seems to have a tremendous liberating affect on people. The only thing *radical* about it is that we dispel the Kitab-i-hearsay and strip some many of those overworked passages that everyone loves to quote at every deepening, feast, summer school etc. We present these deepenings with an eye to tearing away veils. Giving people the tools to help them do this. Helping them see the Big Picture and letting them find their part in it. But all that trouble I mentioned in my last post? All that stemmed from a few people that manipulated both a community and the members of the LSA *from* that community to accuse me, and a few others from our group of the most terrible *crimes* - without any proof. Of course after we pointed out to them that they really had no proof they realized there was no way to *do* anything, other than a tongue lashing of sorts. But the letter they wrote about me, where they had written in stone events that they themselves had *never* witnessed and had only the testimony of two emotionally unbalanced people who I might add have hastily left the country - the investigation that never including interviewing the dozens of people who know my very very well - my thoughts, etc and could have completely torn apart this testimony - all this because they have never wanted to hear what was being said. Fortunately the other parties that rec. the letter, the Aux. brd. etc., have pretty much dismissed it. We have the blessing and support of the Portland LSA and we are proving, via our actions, our character and our understanding of the Guardian. While it is critical to diagnose our problems so that we can correct them and move on, we also need to actually get back in the *game* so to speak. We need to see ALL of this in context of the Guardian's vision of America, because that is the only safeguard we have. We absolutely cannot go off down some liberal-democratic new ideology path in search of the Holy Grail. It will not work. Everything we need to *correct* our course can be found in the Guardian's writings about America and many of the letters from the UHJ. We need to form a critical mass and carry this out - not just talk, but do, as we are here. Our efforts, combined can begin to tear away the old mental template from the American Baha'is and replace it with the new Baha'i template. But soooo much of all this ugliness is because this community has been dead in the water for nearly fifty years. Things decay, get stinky and people turn ugly under such stagnant conditions. Time to blow a hole in the wall and clean it all out. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Graham Sorenson[SMTP:Graham@fragrant.demon.co.ukrotweiler] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 4:22 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer writes >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes >comes out. > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al #with all the attendent spams etc. > -- Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from my address. http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk ---------- From: haukness@tenet.edu[SMTP:haukness@tenet.edu] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 6:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai John B. Cornell wrote: > > Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Dear Robert, > > I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at > alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom > learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a > group like BCCA is a blessing. > > John Allah-u-Abha Friends: I am waiting on the Baha'i scholarship freedom on Noble to sift down before I decide on jumping in or not. As Tom Hodges posted what is my inclination, that the topic is not suited for Noble and is better suited for a place like here as it is not a topic we need to air out with non-Baha'is. I see this as going back to Resurrection and Renewal, the MacEion sympathy bandwagon and talisman. The statements coming out of these 3 camps were as if written in stone, that only a few persecuted and enlightened scholars knew what true freedom is, and the Baha'i Administration and core of non-thinking blind followers thwarting freedom didn't respect free the study of concepts but got hung up on methods. I am waiting to see how this last round of who is anti and un scholarly and who is a bona-fide scholar. What I recognize is that the Baha'i Administration has a long history of surrounding itself with great scholarship, indeed represents the best of scholarship concepts and methods. There is only a rift, to those who I believe see the covenant a lot differenlty than did the Guardian. Now, there is always a lot of posts that no one can call anyone a covenant breaker. This is true, but there are, however well intentioned it may be, lot's of voices among us, I believe, who extend this to mean that we Baha'is cannot discuss the covenant. Which correlates to the current snides that have been taken the past 2 years that Adib Taherzadeh represents a case in point of non-scholarship, because he is just a follower and not independent enough in secular science, but then too, that one cannot write about what he titled his vol5 book, "The Covenant of Bahaullah," because 'no one can talk about this. The problem is, that this then means one cannot come to a conclusion that the problem sometimes, in some of this stuff, is that the Baha'i Covenant is not being taken into proper consideration in the summations bandied about. And if indeed the issue in some of the neo-Baha'i literature, voices in error because of a departure from the Sacred Writings, that it is not true scholarship, to ignore bringing the Covenant into the analysis of the discussion. Thus this is not the same or even allied with calling anyone a covenant breaker, but rather, that a paragraph or a sentence, when held up to analysis, can be found to be at variance with the Baha'i Covenant. If so, this can be important to point out. It is not just the Universal House of Justice which can discuss the nature of obedience, following, and intigrating the covenant, both when it happens and when it doesn't, it is also a topic open to all Baha'is. Thus when MacEoin does a 50/50 study of the Faith "Thge polarization of Azalis and Baha'is resulted in the rapid displacement of any serious alternative definition of Babi Orthodoxy." and "the sectarian biases of the 2 opposing groups," he fails to give us the information of why the reader should accept that the Babi's are as biased as their persecutors. and "doctrines may be reconstucted with out serious prejudice to either side of the dispute." more 50/50 suggesting both sides as equally causing the dispute, and MacEion's very casual description of the Bab "years he (no caps used) regarded himself as..." leaves us with an examlple of where, I think along with Abbas Amanat and talisman gives us this rift of dogmatic Baha'i scholarship, (my social group) and true free thinking new Baha'i scholarship. That we can see The Bab so casual like, does not impress me from a standpoint that it is something that I could never dream up, indeed, I was raised a Westerner where Rice and Weber portrayed Judas as the victem in Jesus Christ Superstar because he was the sane one, and Jesus was too radical, so I know all about scholars being cute. What I hope happens, is when we encounter each other, that we can quote what we feel is wrong and then the group of us can examine our quotes to see what indeed we have said and what indeed we have not said. Something the free thinking real scholars on talisman, from what I could see, could never do. To be revisited later. au revoir jh ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 7:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: [Fwd: Re: talk.religion.bahai] Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Dear Friends: > > Once, when I was doing a search for some information related to the > Faith I came accross a list of this man's posts. Suffice it say that it > was very upsetting. I recently noted that some of his messages are > included in an anti-Baha'i web page put together by unfriendly Muslims. > It is very painful to see such hateful prejudice in our community. My > understanding is that Mr. Glaysher is a Baha'i in good standing. Does > anyone know him personally? Is he in need of some professional > counseling? My heart feels torn. I don't understand how a person in > their right mind, a lover of Baha'u'llah, can write such hurtful things. > I apologize if I am out of line. Is there a way that we can help him > heal? Am I engaging myself in gossip!? Forgive me if I am. > > Love, > Roxana > > Graham Sorenson wrote: > > > > In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert > > Moldenhauer writes > > >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > >comes out. > > > > > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > > > > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al > > #with all the attendent spams etc. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from > > my address. > > http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk ---------- From: Michael R. Moum[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 1:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Ragna Jensen wrote: > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, don't bother. Baha'i Love, Mike > > Thanks, > Ragna > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > ---------- > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: http://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: J. Richard Hoff[SMTP:rhoff9@pipelinepc.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 10:43 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Reply J.Richard Hoff Thanks for the basic information. It is enlightening on this issue J.Richard Hoff ichael R. Moum wrote: > > Ragna Jensen wrote: > > > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? > > CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a > new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued > to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more > knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. > > Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of > his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, > don't bother. > > Baha'i Love, > Mike > > > > Thanks, > > Ragna > > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > > > ---------- > > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > -- > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > home page: http://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 12:09 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Others have defined the terms here. So, I have read a good bit of what is on alt.religion.bahai. Not a pretty site but not as bad as I expected. Several Baha'is are participating regularly (Don, Chris, ...) and trying to guide some of the threads onto productive channels. 90-95% of the content is pure junk or pointless bickering that I am glad is not allowed on our moderated list. But I don't think much harm has resulted and some good has come of it. So it probably doesn't matter much whether it is approved or not. If disapproved, the alt newsgroup will continue. If talk.religion.bahai is approved, it will have wider circulation but with the same content as the alt. group and the alt. group may be abandonded (or maybe not). Tom Hodges On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 6:25 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 9/20/97 1:11 AM In answer to your last message : >visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of >his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, >don't bother. Dear friends- I deleted the name of the writer referred to above for I don't wish to solicit negative feelings about him. My vote is to allow those who are on this alternative list to do what they want to do, I want no part of it. If we pay no attention to them they will lose whatever little energy they have. In thinking about all this my thoughts as always turn to the subject of purpose. What is their purpose in speaking the way they do? We know that reality consists of both what appears and and seen by our physical senses in addition to what underlies these appearances which is only observed by our spiritual powers of the intellect, faith, reason and intuition. So I say to myself, "what underlies the appearances of these words"?, in some of these negative postings on these unmoderated lists. Several reasons come to mind and none appear to be justified by any reasonable interpretation of the Writings regarding speech and the principles of consultation. I don't like thinking this way. I want to think of higher motives. So I allow mistakes, allow slips and even name-calling once in a while for we all make mistakes. But to see the same friends repeatedly using the same style of delivery, tone and sometimes abusive language tells me that there is an underlying problem in the writer. They say they want freedom of speech. Well, what about me? I need freedom too and I don't feel free to participate in conversations that are constantly bombarding my lower level sensations. It inhibits me and my heart feels hurt at these expressions of a distasteful and uncivilized nature. I think to myself, "do they really want my opinion in their search for truth and unity". If they did would they not be sensitive to my needs too? I am of theirs. How can either of us have true, open and honest freedom to express ourselves if we are reacting constantly out of our lower nature.? The Writings were given to us to free ourselves from the "satanic strength" of the lower nature and translate it into that "heavenly power" available to the soul. Why would we want to keep ourselves anchored down in the depths of the material self when it is so obvious that this will not solve our problems? Instead of criticizing moderation I praise us for having such a facility to act as a traffic cop and regulate the flow. If we really want unmoderated lists, and I believe we should have them, then lets demonstrate our spirituality and there will be no need for moferation. In the meantime until we are more developed I welcome the Moderators whom I found to be most cooperative and helpful. regards, doug ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 5:42 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: talk.religion.bahai Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the discussion. I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion group. I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the right word, being in there where the action is. So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for the Faith, please don't stop those who do. Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. Peace be to all of you, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 -- O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) For more information go to , or . ---------- From: John Bromberek[SMTP:johnb@ipa.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 2:41 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Friends, I have hesitated to weigh back in on this issue because I'm not sure I can trust myself to keep a level head, but here goes. First I will not vote on the question when the Call for Votes (CFV) is issued, nor will I discuss it with those who will want to have another knock-down-drag-out fight over it. I don't think that it concerns me. Alt.religion.bahai has indeed become what most people feared talk.religion.bahai might, only with a slightly smaller following than if it had come into being under the second name. Basically, it's a conversational sewer. (Oops! Gettin' emotional again...) What I see as the most unfortunate thing about all this is not so much the contributions of the "enemies of the Baha'is" (who feel that they are either Baha'is or friends of the Faith but just can't stand the Baha'is), or the "enemies of the Faith" (who are only doing what they think is right), or the covenant breakers, or the would-be Messiah's. I'm quite content to have all these people talk to one another, and I don't much care what they say, because they are so ill tempered and obnoxious that the general public isn't going to listen to them for very long, or give them much credence. No, the only problem I see are the few Baha'is who are staying on there and trying to "educate" these poor unfortunates, and thereby feeding them, and prolonging their rants. Yes, it is a very sad thing to see the occasional deer in the headlights phenomenon of an innocent seeker wandering into that forum, but we can help them more (if at all) with personal e-mail than trying to jump into the public fray on the newsgroup. Much care needs to be exercised even in that, though, since a lot of the participants have no regard for private communications. If you send something to them in confidence it is likely to end up copied to the newsgroup whether you want it there or not. So, my only plea is to leave them be. If they want their talk.religion.anti-bahai newsgroup, so be it. But let's see whether they can sustain any interest in it by themselves without this oppositional fertilization from other Baha'is. And, beyond that, just leave it to the Institutions. They are well aware of what's going on. John B. Fayetteville, Arkansas johnb@ipa.net ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 11:40 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Thankyou Chris! You said all the things that I couldn't figure out how to say about unmoderated groups! Don't get me wrong everyone, I like soc.religion.bahai well enough but there has been more than a few times that my posts have been sent back to me because the moderaters felt they weren't conducive to the Baha'i Faith. I'm sorry but everything we deal with here in this world involves the faith. Normally the posts that the moderators have refused to put up have been with women's rights, history issues, racial issues and so forth that they thought wasn't in line with discussion the faith. And that just left me feeling very confused about the purpose of this news group. I don't post there anymore because of this. If I may say, the purpose of moderators (from my understanding) is to weed out the spamming and defamation posts. It is not the role of a moderator to send me back my posts just because they don't feel it goes along with the topic being discussed. I *feel* that it does. Shouldn't that be enough? Thoroughly frustrated, Roxanne risky@indy.net > Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > > I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the > impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the > discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about > individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the > Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of > prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the > discussion. > > I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB > (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. > At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time > I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days > there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and > insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded > to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers > withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers > which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In > fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion > group. > > I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts > and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven > where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We > cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding > school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the > critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up > with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh > world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our > beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of > satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the > right word, being in there where the action is. > > So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an > unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest > poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the > formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an > interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite > of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly > 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have > ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so > many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in > discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > > Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack > the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news > about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put > ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, > the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad > light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > > I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at > all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for > the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > > Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected > by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > > Peace be to all of you, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 > -- > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn > not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide > in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the > eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the > knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee > to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. > Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) > For more information go to , > or . > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 7:51 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 9/20/97 8:05 AM In answer to your last message : Dear friends- John makes a good point here IMO. I still wonder why it is that some people want to just say whatever comes into their mouths with no concern about anything. For example, having a discussion on infallibility is fine if it increases our understandings and appreciation for our Central Figures, etc. but why is it necessary to use ad hominum attacks, four letter words, or appeals to the baser nature? Or why is it necessary for those who feel they have some convincing evidence to make sweeping, authoritative conclusions about their evidence when in reality none of us really understands the reality of certain things, or anything for that mantter. Yet if one disagrees with these individuals who feel they are right in their conclusions then all manner of undesirable communications arise. And then they want to say that opposers are threatening their right to freedom of speech. There is a quote, and I don't have it at hand, about anyone who creates doubt in another soul. If I remember correctly this is a grave matter to say or do anything that might cause doubt in another heart. Can we really risk this kind of thing? regards, doug >Now I haven't seen research on this, it shouldn't make any difference as >to the strict definition of an un-moderated list, but my feeling, until >I see research that tells me otherwise, would be that the two above >lists would be very different, even though supposedly one can say >whatever they want to on either list. But as I have said, I don't >believe un-moderated means that one can say whatever they want to. Some >degree of integrity and truth is required where ever one is on earth. >Probably more truth and honesty required in the rural streets, and less >in the urban streets. ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:19 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is not. Nor is it's would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a perticularly pleasant place. On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. So I guess it's not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:36 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. I think I'll follow their lead. R ---------- From: rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil[SMTP:rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 1:20 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: talk.religion.bahai Excellent observation Robert. I'm right behind you. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Author: Ragna Jensen at SMTPLINK Date: 9/22/97 8:36 AM ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. I think I'll follow their lead. R ---------- From: Robert R Merriken[SMTP:rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 1:20 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: talk.religion.bahai Excellent observation Robert. I'm right behind you. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Author: Ragna Jensen at SMTPLINK Date: 9/22/97 8:36 AM ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. I think I'll follow their lead. R ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:11 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think > that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is logical to assume so. > It is not. > Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > pleasant place. That's what we discovered. > On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > So I guess it's > not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is bound to suffer. > I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups that affect the public image of the Faith. The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed supervision. 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our image when operated by someone out of control. We should worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a more visible newsgroup. John ---------- From: John Haukness[SMTP:haukness@tenet.edu] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 7:28 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Allah-u-Abha Friends: As I've said I am interested and like both moderated and unmoderated lists. William's comment at the end seems to be on target. Maybe we need two kinds of moderated lists. Along the lines William describes, the ones that weed out spamming and covenant breakers, (if we decide to have a list without them as I definately do, that is it is very important to me to be able to teach the faith without the company of covenant breakers). And then we can also have moderated lists where the moderators moderate to their hearts content, and maybe a list inbetween. But definately, a moderated list that minimally moderates can be very good to some of us. The price one pays for getting off topic, and repetitious and such, for some of us, is worth paying because for allowing those burdens, you also can get some gains, the biggest gain I can think of, is you don't get the rug pulled out from under you just when it get's interesting, or you really feel the need to defend and arguement and such. au revoir btw, I really like srb, this post is not aimed at them, it is aimed at my cyber surfing in general. > > Thankyou Chris! > > You said all the things that I couldn't figure out how to say about > unmoderated groups! Don't get me wrong everyone, I like soc.religion.bahai > well enough but there has been more than a few times that my posts have > been sent back to me because the moderaters felt they weren't conducive to > the Baha'i Faith. I'm sorry but everything we deal with here in this world > involves the faith. Normally the posts that the moderators have refused to > put up have been with women's rights, history issues, racial issues and so > forth that they thought wasn't in line with discussion the faith. And that > just left me feeling very confused about the purpose of this news group. I > don't post there anymore because of this. If I may say, the purpose of > moderators (from my understanding) is to weed out the spamming and > defamation posts. It is not the role of a moderator to send me back my > posts just because they don't feel it goes along with the topic being > discussed. I *feel* that it does. Shouldn't that be enough? > > Thoroughly frustrated, > Roxanne > risky@indy.net > > > Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > > > > I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the > > impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the > > discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about > > individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the > > Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of > > prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the > > discussion. > > > > I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB > > (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. > > At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time > > I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days > > there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and > > insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded > > to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers > > withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers > > which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In > > fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion > > group. > > > > I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts > > and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven > > where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We > > cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding > > school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the > > critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up > > with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh > > world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our > > beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of > > satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the > > right word, being in there where the action is. > > > > So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an > > unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest > > poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the > > formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an > > interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite > > of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly > > 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have > > ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so > > many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in > > discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > > > > Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack > > the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news > > about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put > > ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, > > the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad > > light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > > > > I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at > > all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for > > the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > > > > Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected > > by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > > > > Peace be to all of you, > > > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 > > -- > > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn > > not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide > > in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the > > eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the > > knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee > > to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. > > Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) > > For more information go to , > > or . > > ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 8:08 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Dear Doug, The issue I'm raising here isn't about Moderators doing their actual job, which they should be doing (i.e. weeding out defaming posts, spams, and those that are too base to let pass). What I'm concerned with and what has happened to me is that Moderators taking their jobs far beyond the firepit. Too many times they have sent me back my posts with the tag line that "It doesn't go along with the topic of discussion" or "We think this isn't appropriate to the conversation." Well hell. If I *didn't* think it mattered, then why did I bother to write it? Some people in Moderator Land need to be humbled. Roxanne risky@indy.net > Dear friends- > > John makes a good point here IMO. > > I still wonder why it is that some people want to just say whatever comes > into their mouths with no concern about anything. > > For example, having a discussion on infallibility is fine if it increases > our understandings and appreciation for our Central Figures, etc. but why > is it necessary to use ad hominum attacks, four letter words, or appeals > to the baser nature? Or why is it necessary for those who feel they have > some convincing evidence to make sweeping, authoritative conclusions > about their evidence when in reality none of us really understands the > reality of certain things, or anything for that mantter. Yet if one > disagrees with these individuals who feel they are right in their > conclusions then all manner of undesirable communications arise. And > then they want to say that opposers are threatening their right to > freedom of speech. > > There is a quote, and I don't have it at hand, about anyone who creates > doubt in another soul. If I remember correctly this is a grave matter to > say or do anything that might cause doubt in another heart. Can we > really risk this kind of thing? > > regards, > doug > > > > >Now I haven't seen research on this, it shouldn't make any difference as > >to the strict definition of an un-moderated list, but my feeling, until > >I see research that tells me otherwise, would be that the two above > >lists would be very different, even though supposedly one can say > >whatever they want to on either list. But as I have said, I don't > >believe un-moderated means that one can say whatever they want to. Some > >degree of integrity and truth is required where ever one is on earth. > >Probably more truth and honesty required in the rural streets, and less > >in the urban streets. > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 10:32 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 9/21/97 6:41 PM In answer to your last message : Thank you John for so nicely echoing my sentiments although your descriptive phrases were a little more graphical than what I would have said and probably therefore would have more impact. I also have no objection to anyone forming any kind of group they wish and I feel no compelling urge to save any Baha'is or seekers from the kinds of damage discussions like this can do. My feeling is that no matter what we do we cannot keep a soul back from accepting His Lord. We might delay things maybe but in the end each soul that is earnestly seeking truth will find it, not because of us but more likely in spite of us. Personally I can overlook a few misgivings, miscommunications and emotional outburst that are very negative and undignified but we are talking about a continual pattern of a style of communication that makes it very difficult for anyone to investigate truth and reality. This is far more suppressive to me than what any well intentioned moderator might do to free speech, a term that I feel is highly misunderstood. Nobody on these lists can claim ignorance of acceptable and non-acceptable communication. If a person possesses a truth then there is no need for using any power but that of humility. regards, doug >Friends, > > I have hesitated to weigh back in on this issue because I'm not sure I >can trust myself to keep a level head, but here goes. > > First I will not vote on the question when the Call for Votes (CFV) is >issued, nor will I discuss it with those who will want to have another >knock-down-drag-out fight over it. I don't think that it concerns me. > > Alt.religion.bahai has indeed become what most people feared >talk.religion.bahai might, only with a slightly smaller following than if >it had come into being under the second name. Basically, it's a >conversational sewer. (Oops! Gettin' emotional again...) > > What I see as the most unfortunate thing about all this is not so much >the contributions of the "enemies of the Baha'is" (who feel that they are >either Baha'is or friends of the Faith but just can't stand the Baha'is), >or the "enemies of the Faith" (who are only doing what they think is >right), or the covenant breakers, or the would-be Messiah's. I'm quite >content to have all these people talk to one another, and I don't much care >what they say, because they are so ill tempered and obnoxious that the >general public isn't going to listen to them for very long, or give them >much credence. No, the only problem I see are the few Baha'is who are >staying on there and trying to "educate" these poor unfortunates, and >thereby feeding them, and prolonging their rants. > > Yes, it is a very sad thing to see the occasional deer in the headlights >phenomenon of an innocent seeker wandering into that forum, but we can help >them more (if at all) with personal e-mail than trying to jump into the >public fray on the newsgroup. Much care needs to be exercised even in >that, though, since a lot of the participants have no regard for private >communications. If you send something to them in confidence it is likely >to end up copied to the newsgroup whether you want it there or not. > > So, my only plea is to leave them be. If they want their >talk.religion.anti-bahai newsgroup, so be it. But let's see whether they >can sustain any interest in it by themselves without this oppositional >fertilization from other Baha'is. And, beyond that, just leave it to the >Institutions. They are well aware of what's going on. > >John B. > >Fayetteville, Arkansas >johnb@ipa.net > > > ---------- From: Rowe, Thomas[SMTP:trowe@uwsp.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 11:37 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Response to Frederic Glaysher Dear Mr. Glaysher: You wrote: >I note this morning a message, appended to the end >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I must assume from the way your post was constructed that you were referring to: > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > > First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > you to desist where that is not the case. > > Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > > We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. Query: In what way is this slander? If you did not do the act, then the accusation is libelous (you have to assume this is a printed medium). Theoretically, if harm accrues to your reputation by libel (or slander) you have legal recourse. Of course, if that was a private message directed to you by the coordinators, then by definition it cannot be libelous since you chose to make it public with your post. If the statement is true, (and I must admit from my own correspondence with you as well as reading your posts that I believe it) then also, by definition, there is no libel unless there is malicious intent. Frankly, sir, I do not understand you. When you consider the spam and tripe that gets posted on unmoderated lists, having moderation is a benefit, not a hinderence. I have several times posted to soc.rel.bahai where the moderators asked that I change something. So I did. My thoughts, only very slightly altered by context, were still published. Its not as if the moderators try to present a saccharin sweet version of Baha'i by not allowing negative posts - the only thing they control is temperate language, keeping discussion on topic, and eventually putting an end to a discussion when it becomes completely repetitious. Given that this avenue exists for non-Baha'i discussion, I fail to see any benefits to an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai, especially when you consider that an alt.religion.bahai does already exist. If that list is not as widely dispersed as is the talk... groups, well its sort of like saying I can have access to the local cable channel, but not access to the local broadcast channel to air my views. I have no false illusions that this message will cause you to reconsider your position. Nevertheless, I yield to the impulse to ask you to examine your own actions and words in as neutral a fashion as possible to determine if, just perhaps, all the negativity you feel directed at you is at least partly a function of your own actions and words. Please do not repost this on alt.religion.bahai. Thanks. Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu ************************************************* He is a true Baha'i who strives, by day and by night to progress and advance along the path of human endeavor. Abdu'l-Baha ************************************************ http://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/bahai.htm (Pictures) ---------- From: Azzizz[SMTP:DrAzzizz@netgazer.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 12:39 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Friends, I personally do not care to have email from Mr. Glaysher or his colleagues in my mail box. Must we have this discussion here? To what end? All previous discussions with these people start off okay but quickly degenerate into hate-filled, frothing spume. Perhaps, these folks can discuss this with the National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which they reside, or, better yet, a directive could be obtained from the World Center. This would prevent a lot of bickering and provide an answer to these problems -- one which everyone bound to The Covenant will be happy to obey. Just a Suggestion, Azzizz ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 3:04 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 1) I'd like to add my two cents' worth on the talk.religion.bahai (TRB) discussion. For those of you who don't know me, I've been a contributor to both soc.religion.bahai (SRB) and alt.religion.bahai (ARB) -- SRB for approximately 3 years, ARB since its inception earlier this year. I won't deny that ARB can be a very wild place. It's true. The discussions there aren't always conducted in accordance with Baha'i ideals. There is more contention and strife than one would like. Threads crossposted from irrelevant newsgroups are frustrating, as are the cases of spamming that pop up. And yes, Covenant breakers do post occasionally. But given all of that, there are hopeful signs in ARB. As Chris Manvell pointed out, the Covenant breakers' postings have been routinely ignored (in fact, I've set up a filter on my news reader to block them from ever showing up on my system). Many participants try and conduct themselves according to Baha'i principles. Their examples stand out amidst the noise. They respond to attacks on the Faith in a courteous manner. They try to move the discussions away from name-calling and pointless bickering. Anchored in the Covenant, they withstand the a