|
[Mostly from 2000, after a few from late 1999.]
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Fred's Baha'i Membership Could Not Confirmed
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 8:26 AM
Millennial Greetings, Susan.
Uhm, I was speaking in terms of giving legitimacy to
critics and of
demonstrating the insecurity of incompetent administrators. It doesn't
matter whether you are the president of the US or a member of a dinky
cult's
wannabee politburo, the effect is the same.
Who the Hell gave Doug Martin the right to meddle with
the beliefs of
anyone else? The Baha'i Faith is not derived from the theories of John
Locke
but rather those of Baha'u'llah, who forbade Doug Martin and the boys from
interfering in the personal beliefs and the freedom of expression of any
other human being. Anyone may acknowledge Baha'u'llah and believe that
Baha'u'llah was telling it like it is and not some forked tongue Soviet
mouthing newspeak when he (Baha'u'llah) spoke of world peace depending
upon
the recognition of the equality of women and men. World Peace has not yet
happened because Doug, Adib and the rest chose to assume the role of cult
leaders, keep the women out and react to honest criticism in the Soviet
manner.
John Locke is right on the mark when it comes to
freedom to create as
many religious organizations as necessary to accomodate individual freedom
of conscience and the natural tendency of leaderships to seek to rule over
unquestioning sheep and to impose their limited understandings on the
outfit.
Baha'u'llah, on the other hand, had this crazy idea
that all of human
thought could be harmonized through the validation of the inalienable
right of each individual perception to be shared, expressed, enunciated,
promulgated, all the while tolerating the vast variety of varying views
within the rainbow of human thought.
Doug, Hooper and the boys display to the world their
opinion that the
founder of the world religion they prefer to direct as a dinky cult had no
clue about harmonizing a species. Now, Stalin, there's the guy to take as
a
role model. What does it matter that this role model has already been
discredited?
Now, you tell me whether it wouldn't be better to have
people able to
write as well as Juan, Nima and I composing posts about this principled
entity where men, following the example of the Hands of the Cause, gave
up absolute power, proving the World Unifier Manifestation of the age of
maturity had the influence to overcome religious fundamentalism,
sectarianism and male chauvinism, so inherent an evil of past power games.
You tell me whether inclusion or exclusion was the most effective concept
to further the goal of world peace. You tell me whether there'd be any
need
to quibble about whether a century ends in 00 or not, if you had a model
of
human peace and harmony that chose not to follow John Locke's manner of
allowing for the sectarian diversity of religious beliefs, but instead
accepted Baha'u'llah's wisdom of including each opinion inside the
rainbow of one over-arching human faith.
To the Future,
Michael
Smaneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> One is a citizen by virtue of being born or naturalized within a
country. But
> one belongs to a religion by virtue of believing certain things. The
two issues
> are really not comparable. I suggest you take a look at John Locke's
essay on
> Religious Tolerance. He recognized that an indispensible part of that
tolerance
> was the right of each religious community to determine its own
membership and
> to discipline that membership by means of excommunication. In his
view the
> right of each person to choose their own religion and the right of
religions to
> excommunicate those who did not recognize its authority were
inextricably
> intertwined and that the state had no right to intervene in either
function.
> Susan Stiles Maneck
> History, Stetson University
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 2:33 AM
Greetings, Adelard.
Is it you or Hooper and the boys who are trying to
impose this one
fundamentalist interpretation of the words of Abdu'l Baha on another human
being, despite Baha'u'llah's insistence that human harmony is impossible
if there is any attempt to interfere with the freedom of thought and of
expression?
It seems clear to me that those who find themselves
entrusted with
leadership within the Baha'i Faith are being encouraged to rule as if
they were the source of all good, to promote human harmony and follow the
essential principles of their religion. The individuals comprising a
maturing species are to seek to carry out the practical manifestation
of the essential principles Baha'u'llah enunciated.
To insist that this authorizes those who find
themselves in the seats
of power to trash the essential principles of the religion, to rule
according to fundamentalist whim and demand the absolute thoughtless
obedience of the entire maturing human race is demonstrably fallacious.
Humans have sacrificed their lives to oppose this kind of evil, and the
fruit the current fundamentalist leadership in Baha'i has garnered by
attempting to dictate this evil is that the expected troops have washed
their hands of such outmoded fundamentalism. In addition, as only to be
expected, many within the religion have spoken out against this narrow
anachronistic attachment to old divisive notions, failed theories of
totalitarian leadership.
Neither you nor Hooper and the boys are authorized by
your prophet
to denigrate the sincerity of anyone else. Anyone may read any words and
perceive these words according to the divinely created variety of human
thought and understanding. My understanding is that the imposition of a
single permissable interpretation is contrary to the remedy your prophet
stated would cure humanity of conflict and contention. Humans require the
freedom to see things according to a vast rainbow of perception, and to
allow others to view things in many other valid ways.
The current members of the UHJ have trashed the
guidance of Baha'u'llah
by opposing Baha'u'llah's essential concepts of the equality of women and
of
men, of the freedom of thought and expression, of the harmony of humanity,
of the non-existence of evil, etc. When these are followed, then the UHJ
may claim more convincingly that it is being guided by the founder of your
religion. I doubt that I'm in a very small minority when I state, I assure
you quite sincerely, that no entity I'd consider divine would give the
time
of day to any leadership trashing liberal democracy, human rights,
equality
of women and men, freedom of thought and expression, etc. You are
quite
free to believe otherwise and to express your belief as convincingly as
you can. Just don't insist everyone must see things your way.
To Harmony,
Michael
"Adelard R" (edruba@cruzio.com) writes:
> Greetings,Michael;
>
> I suggest you to read the "will and testament "
of Abdu'l-baha.
> And if you did , you posting is lack of sincerity or may
be you don't
> think that the faith is divine in nature.
> Don't you know that the "Universal house of justice
" is being guided by
> the blessings of Baha'u'llah.Was not
> that promised by and written in the "will and
testament of Abdu'l-baha".
> Please be sincere in your beliefs .
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 1:53 AM
Greetings, Brian.
Uhm, surely there were plentiful and delightful fruits
for some in the
Nazi party, for a while. Because the theory of exlusion was carried to the
extremes it was, even these suffered as the 12 year reich came to its
tragic
end. Now, the difference with Baha'i is that in theory it is for everyone,
and it is supposed to promote some fairly uncommon ideals. The beneficial
fruits it harvested were largely the consequence of those fairly uncommon
seeds having been planted. Now, some of that harvest has been trashed and
some awefully stale seeds are being planted these days by the likes of
Doug and Hooper -- you know, anachronistic concepts that human beings are
to perceive the species as divided beween the elect and the lost, that
only
men may rule at the top, that one may not freely express one's opinion,
that the patriarchy is owed thoughtless obedience, that those who think
too
much are bad, that liberal democracy is condemned and the leadership
theories of Stalin are worthy of emulation, etc.
Now, the harvest of the latest model of UHJ seeds is
proving to be
less praiseworthy, unless the anachronistic good feeling of being one of
the elect few is defined as praiseworthy. Perhaps, the original seeds of
Baha'u'llah were okay and his vision of a harmonious fragrant garden of
divinely created diverse humanity wasn't so much in need of ditching.
To A Decent Future,
Michael
"Dr. Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
> Nice point Michael,
>
> but the difference surely is in the fruits of what we follow? The
tragedy that was
> the third Reich has been laid bare for the world to fail to
comprehend, so great
> was the tragedy. The fruits of the Baha'i Faith are plentiful and
delightful.
>
> But point taken.
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 9:00 AM
Greetings, Brian.
Congratulations for keeping your cool (whether you
thought you were or
not, I felt you were) in the face of some pretty tough talk in my posts.
I'll try to reply as cooly. I'm sorry if you don't notice it, but at least
the analogies having been made, will not be repeated in this
post.
First of all, the common fallacy of those defending
what I consider the
indefensible attempt by the UHJ to reduce the vision of Baha'u'llah from
an
all-encompassing over-arching world religion into an exclusivist
fundamentalist cult is to comment on the personality of someone. What one
says is of interest in a Baha'i consultation and according to the Baha'i
principles of consultation who says something isn't even supposed to be of
concern to the one who spoke. What was said has been placed on the table
and
may be considered on its own merrit. This, by the way, is in full
agreement
with the rules of formal logic, where ad hominem (to the person) is held
to
be a fallacy.
Now, the defenders of what I consider the indefensible
spend a great deal
of attention on who said something. They spend a lot of energy on exerting
pressure so the likes of Juan Cole renounce any association with what
bears
so little ressemblance to the all-embracing vision of Baha'u'llah, and
then
speak as if such a renunciation invalidates the points Juan makes. This is
a method of discourse contrary to formal logic and opposed to Baha'i
principle. The threads concerning whether or not someone in Chicago has
erased the name of Frederick Glaysher are in the same category, as is the
issue of sending out a letter telling Michael McKenny the UHJ said his
name
should be erased from a list in Toronto. It should be noted that even
within
this fallacious context the UHJ has not proclaimed any of these people to
be
Covenant Breakers, a medieval concept I've addressed earlier on here and
elsewhere in Baha'i cyberspace. If the whole purpose of the Baha'i Faith
was to achieve the peaceful harmony of humanity and Baha'i leadership has
had the nerve to tell the contending governments and peoples of the world
to get along with each other, then shunning those who don't see eye to
eye with you about the Baha'i Faith only demonstrates you are not of those
who practise what they preach.
I think I've been clear enough in stating that, in my
opinion, the
harvest of straying from the Baha'i principle of the freedom of thought
and expression to the one of insisting that everyone must accept only one
fundamentalist interpretation of the words of Baha'u'llah, and even those
of Shoghi Effendi, is the cultification of what was intended to be a world
religion. Those with the power to do so can insist that those who do not
keep quiet about opinions varying from the literalist fundamentalist are
excluded from the elect, but such an insistence does not result in fruits
plentiful and delightful at a general level, whatever thrills one may
obtain from feeling one of the small minority who are seeing reality in
the only true light, even the only true Baha'i light.
If you mean that the fruit is in the writings,
according to an imposed
literalist fundamentalist interpretation, the human mindset, so very
varied,
renders this impossible for humanity. Humans are so diverse of perception
that humanity cannot accept one imposed literalist interpretation. Humans
are also at the point, some would hold as a consequence of the influence
of
Baha'u'llah, that an imposed literalist interpretation that places the
rule of a patriarchy above the essential principle of the equality of
women
and men, will succeed only in preserving the present men's grasp on power
within an overwhelmingly rejected anachronism. This has been demonstrated
clearly. No incumbent on the UHJ has been defeated in election, if one may
use this term for how Baha'i leadership goes about prohibiting a direct
vote for Baha'i leadership and perpetuating individuals in office, and the
predicted troops have quite understandably not joined an outdated
patriarchal outfit.
As to how one may have understandings that accept
the as still hidden
"In this day women are men/rulers" (when will all the writings
be published?)
that think it made more sense for Abdu'l Baha to answer Corinne True's
question clearly and tell her she had to accept her exlusion from the
"General House of Justice" in Chicago, the exclusion she was
complaining
about, rather than put up with her exclusion from the UHJ, not to be
established for more than fifty years, that really essential principles
such as the equality of women and men must trump the literalist reading
even of Shoghi Effendi (He used the spiritual interpretation of this
letter to Corinne True to uphold essential principle and state that in
every case, where it was safe to do so, women were equally eligible to
serve on Baha'i spiritual assemblies, clearly identified with houses
of
justice; it is humanly possible to envision the utilization of this
spirit of upholding the essential principle of the equality of women and
men over a dogmatic fundamentalism that does not rise above the literal
interpretation of words and letters), that the essential Baha'i principle
of the harmony of mind and heart, reason and faith permit more than one
dogmatic literalist understanding of Shoghi Effendi's infallibility, as
well as the infallibility of the UHJ (and hasn't Ron House repeatedly
reminded us that this word is consistently passed off as meaning inerrant
when those in charge have admitted when he's pressed them that it does not
mean this), that one may perceive such writings to refer to the high
standards of behaviour those finding themselves in the position of
leadership in Baha'i should strive to manifest, the opposite meaning from
they should suppress all articulate comment reflecting understandings at
variance to their own, and saying one has complete freedom to speak in
exile is not really a good demonstration of upholding the freedom of
thought and expression -- all these have been discussed in some detail and
may be searched out in the archives of this and of other cyberspace sites.
I am all in favour of freedom of thought and
expression. Express your
point of view as clearly as you like, and by all means detail the good
things going on in the Baha'i Faith. That certainly won't be off topic.
I'll look forward to reading about them.
Slan,
Michael
"Dr. Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
>
> I would say that the fruits are there for ALL to enjoy. First of all
there
> is the life-giving water of the Holy Writings.
>
>
> I understand this riles you, but then again, if God has said He wants
it
> this way, are we wise to disagree? On the other hand, if you think
that
> the UHJ got it wrong, you could point out where God, through
Baha'u'llah,
> agrees with you?
> ...
> Well, this is your POV, and every right you have to hold it. I am of
another opinion, I
> see good things happening,
> ...
> 1. What is the truth of Baha'u'llah? How can I be sure He is of
God?
> 2. If He is of God, how do I react to law AB or principle XY?
> 3. How do I make my Faith practicable, day to day and liveable? Tread
the spiritual path
> with practical feet?
> ...
>
> Slainte
>
> Brian
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 1:25 AM
Greetings, David.
Don't you think it would be better to grasp the mindset
which leads
to the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler ahead of time, rather than working
to establish a totalitarian theocratic world state a la fundamentalist UHJ
vision, so that your grandchildren will be spared the reality of dying at
the hands of empowered Baha'i fundamentalists, if they have not the worse
fate of executing other human beings because of a natural diversity of
human thought, the liberal democratic tolerance and understanding of which
Baha'u'llah called for and the UHJ has ditched?
The sole difference between Hitler and the UHJ is that
he had the power
of a 20th Century state to enforce his will. And, you are quite wrong in
stating there is an identical obedience situation between Hitler and the
Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, as I've said here,
has not sought to suppress dissent -- to the extent that those seeking to
break up our federation and establish a separate country of Quebec, far
from being relegated to concentration camps and gas chambers, have freely
expressed their opinion and been elected to govern the province of
Quebec.
What ought to be the difference between Hitler and the
UHJ is that the
Covenant be understood as promoting, rather than eliminating, the right
of individuals to freely express and share personal opinions. Liberal
democracy works. Opposing liberal democracy a la UHJ is the mindset of
Hitler and Stalin. This fails hellishly. You choose which you'd rather
have.
What is more hurtful, to have the reality of the nature
of exclusivist
fundamentalism exposed in blunt language, or to follow the dictates of
such
fundamentalist passion to the point that all that prevents Hooper, Doug
and the boys from creating a worse hell than Hitler's or Stalin's is their
lack of the ability to do so? The theory that everything Shoghi Effendi
said is literally true means that a theocratic state is the intent of this
outfit. The notion that Hooper, Doug and the boys can trash whatever they
please of the high minded principles of the religion and are owed mindless
obedience from all to be included in this theocratic state paves the way
for Hooper's offsping to take the step of the final solution with regard
to
dissidents (The nine bully boys already have said that there cannot be
dissidence within their vision of the Baha'i Faith; check that newspeak
titled Rights and Freedoms Letter).
If you find it painful to see outlined the consequences
of exclusivist
fundamentalism, good. Perhaps there's some hope for what was intended by
it's founder to include, not exclude. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions, and intending to create a peaceful world monolithic state of
sheep all baaing while the UHJ stomps on fundamental human rights and the
principles that were enunciated by Baha'u'llah is guaranteed to produce a
hell worse than those of Hitler and Stalin, if only Hooper and the boys,
"Get the muscle" to do what they want. If you and others really
object to
the reality of the nature of Hooper's brand of exclusivist fundamentalism,
maybe you'll try being a bit more open to Baha'u'llah's vision of
inclusion.
To Harmony,
Michael
"David Fiorito and Jennifer Spotila" (fiospots@pond.com)
writes:
> You know. Maybe it is because I am sitting here with the flu
but I am sick
> and tired of these over blown comparisons that just don't hold up to
> scrutiny.
>
> I am sick of anyone dragging out Hitler and Stalin every time they
get
> ticked off at some one else.
>
> Until there are more mass murdering meglomaniacal psychos running
around can
> we please stop saying that people we disagree with are Stalinist
Nazis?
>
>
> Oh and by the way - you follow the laws of your country don't
you? Well
> guess what in you statement bellow you might as well put in your name
and
> the name of your countries leader because you are doing the same
thing as
> the Germans did during W.W.II - you are following your leader.
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Sunday, January 02, 2000 7:56 PM
Greetings, Brian.
Happy Millennium.
At last I have a moment to reply to your previous post.
I have already
made one comment on it, on the position that one ought to wait for a
divine intervention, or that what transpires: fascist rule in Germany,
the Inquisition, Stalin's reign of terror or the violation by the UHJ of
essential Baha'i principles, is happening according to the pleasure of
God.
This is the position of the tyrrant and the opium eater, and I am so very
happy that our modern age so overwhelmingly disagrees with so dangerous
and
harmful a philosophy. Had there been no Inquisition, no Holocaust, no
reign
of Stalinist terror and had the UHJ not sought to stomp on the principles
of Baha'u'llah and create an exclusive cult, then those other than
cultists
could agree with such historical evidence. However, we may now judge by
the
actual evidence of the history which happened the worthiness of despotic
theories, the utility of taking opium and the price of opposing freedom of
thought and expression, the equality of women and men, the independent
investigation of truth, liberal-democracy itself.
I am so very sorry that you confess that you would have
to leave the
Baha'i Faith, were you to decide that you had a UHJ, as you do, which has
removed itself from the guidance of god. We may quibble about the meaning
of the word god, however, any decent entity does not grant to mortals the
absolute authority to violate principles. Such authority comes through no
other legitimate agency either. The doctrine that the state or the party
or the royal family or the institution of the monarchy or anything else
may
render concentration camps, gulags, inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, etc.
etc. worthy, as opposed to unprincipled deeds, is bogus, hogwash and the
excrement of cattle. A deed is principled not because leadership says so,
but because it is principled, and, if the primary principle insisted
on
is that Hitler, Stalin or the UHJ must be obeyed, regardless of principle,
then the unprincipled, the sadistic and the cultist may obey, and this
obedience will never achieve the harmony of humanity, although censors,
secret police, exile, imprisonment and execution of dissidents be
undertaken by such unprincipled authorities in the name of achieving a
unity no decent person would ascribe to an honest man, let alone a deity.
I entirely disagree with you, and I assert that neither
you, nor anyone
else, not even the UHJ has the right to insist on your opinion. If you
wish
to resign from what you perceive as a cult, divinely guided, you are quite
at liberty to do so. What you have absolutely no right to do, and what the
UHJ has absolutely no right to do, is to insist that anyone else must see
with your eyes, must believe in obedience of despots as the primary
principle, must follow you in quitting a cult on discovering that the UHJ
indeed has discriminated against women, indeed does forbid women from
holding office, indeed has harrassed the likes of Juan Cole to drive them
out of the religion, indeed did erase the name of Michael McKenny from the
membership list, because he continued to post to e-mail lists his opinion
that there are essential principles brought by Baha'u'llah such as the
equality of women and men, the independent investigation of truth, the
harmony of true religion and science, etc. which must be accepted by
any authority seeking to assist a greater harmony among the human species.
Anyone who chooses to believe that the founder of your
religion sought
to provide the essential principles to bring about greater human harmony
and
that these principles outweigh the Stalinist doctrine of absolute
obedience
of any command soever, anyone at all who is of an opinion other than the
literalist one in the infallibility of the UHJ, is quite rightly a
believer,
a member of the Baha'i community, as s/he sees fit. By seeking to have the
ability to decide who is a follower of Baha'u'llah, by drawing on
this
article of its constitution to have the names of individuals erased
because
these individuals have another understanding of the words of the Prophet
of
Baha, than the Stalinist one, the UHJ has strayed far from the
universality
of the purpose of the founder of the religion. It has insisted on a
narrow,
a single, a fundamentalist, a despotic, a tyrranical, a cultic
interpretation
of the words that may also be understood as directing these very members
of
the UHJ to be all-embracing in their vision, to arise above the power
seeking, theself-centredness, the imposition of one viewpoint, the
despotism,
the male chauvinism, the medievalism, into which in reality the current
members of the UHJ have sunk.
My hour is up, so I'll post this. The point is
clear. You are quite at
liberty to believe the primary principle upon which all principle depends
is the obedience of despots, and others are at complete liberty to hold a
less cultish, less opium devouring opinion, and you, nor anyone else has
the right to tell them they must think as you think, or they are not
Baha'i.
To a Better Future,
Michael
The issue regarding the position of women on the UHJ has been decided
upon, and
is based on the Writings. At least, I am satisfied it has been clearly
stated.
But that is my opinion, and a differing opinion is welcome. Where we
differ is
that I have confidence that the UHJ has been guided by God. If I were not
confident of that, I would have to leave the Faith.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Old Friends
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 12:53 PM
Greetings.
An old friend looked in here to find my e-mail address.
Ah, how time flows and memories stir in the breeze of
the years. How
much has passed since you told me of this wondrous medium of cyberspace.
The
USSR has ceased to be, and I in starry eyed innocence walked into Talisman
to
read the provisional translations of writings by Baha'u'llah not available
elsewhere. And this petit gars from Ottawa became one of the articulate
voices encouraging the Baha'is to choose a way embracing the
open-mindedness
so refreshingly a fundamental aspect of the teachings of their prophet. I
was one of them at the time, and you may enjoy reading some of what the
spirit of this faith wafted at that time. The archives of this list
contain
copies of some of this material, and you may assess, as may any
independent
seeeker of truth, the value of the thoughts of these people who were
hounded until they said they weren't Bahai's or, if they persisted in
saying they were, were declared to be unqualified for membership in this
religion.
Personally, I became a Baha'i overwhelmed that God
could be providing
for humanity to avoid the darkness of nuclear confrontation and guiding
the species to harmonious life. Yet, when they so demonstrated, I accepted
the
evidence that those whose obligation it was to further this goal of the
maturity of the Terran species had instead replicated the defects of
previous totalitarian and divisive systems.
I do not know whether it was ever humanly possible to
achieve the
vision of Baha'u'llah, as we saw it in the old days, one vast diverse
garden of humanity, fostering the open-minded search for truth, the
harmony of reason and faith, the freedom of thought and expression, the
balance of the feminine and masculine wings of the bird of the species --
ah, such golden dreams we had so long ago.
Anyway, if you wish, go ahunting for the thoughts of
your old friend
and others such as Juan Cole from those halcyon days in the mid 90s. And,
judge for yourself the quality of opinions decreed heretical (in a
religion
whose author strove to overcome the concept of heresy).
I have spent a lot of time recently very deeply
exploring the ways
of those who were not monotheists. Unlike Juan Cole and some others, my
opinion is that the inability of the UHJ to escape the contagion of power
regardless of principle exposes the incapacity of the revealed
monotheistic
paradigm to provide for a mature human species. There are many strengths
in polytheism, and the chief need, in my opinion, humanity has when it
comes to religion, is the separation of church and state with the state
based on liberal democracy. Humans are too prone to catch the disease of
dictatorial totalitarianism regardless of the particular source of their
theoretical and practical power to allow leaders a legitimacy transcending
liberal democracy, human rights, etc. Perhaps, I'll have more to say on
this
later. For now, greetings again and farewell. I look forward to an old
friendship renewed and wish you all the best.
See You,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Bingo! (was: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the
Millennium)
Date: Sunday, July 16, 2000 11:26 AM
Greetings, Patrick.
(patk9018@my-deja.com) writes:
> Correct. Categorizations of certain individuals as Nazis, or
some sort
> of anti-christ, are simply demonizations which excuse the view holder
> from any additional thoughts on the matter - rationalizations for
> prejudice and rigid adherence to flawed opinions.
President Reagan described Mikhail Gorbachev as
the Evil Emperor. The
response by Gorbachev was to acquaint Westerners with the meaning of the
Russian words Glasnost and Perestroika and to end the Cold War, so that
we
saw recently Westerners describing Gorbachev as the man of the 20th
Century.
Michael Mckenny advised the members of the UHJ
that their actions
in conducting censorship, seeking the exclusion of scholars from the
Baha'i Faith, opposing liberal-democracy, etc. were similar to those
actions which required the defence of the Free World. The response by
the
UHJ was a continued opposition to professors in the humanities and to the
concept of liberal-democracy, as well as the innovation of removing
from the membership rolls some liberal-minded followers of the religion.
What you fail to notice is that it is the
behaviour of Mikhail
Gorbachev and the members of the UHJ which permit unbiased observers
to note the distance or the spot on nature of the assessments made by
others. If one says you are behaving in the manner of the Nazis and you
react by insisting on censorship, thought control, one officially
imposed dogma, etc., it is not the words about you, but your own deeds
which demonstrate the validity of that comparison.
Despite the depiction of Gorbachev as the Evil
Emperor, Reagan and
the West paid keen attention when Gorbachev demonstrated how different
he was from such a depiction. Despite the current lot in power in Haifa
acting previously as have acted such despicable regimes as the Nazis,
let Doug and Co. begin to behave differently, let them welcome,
within
the Baha'i Faith, professors of the humanities such as Juan, who think
in ways confirming Baha'u'llah's description of humanity as a garden,
let them promote humane principles, enunciated also in Baha'i texts,
let us observe such actions and sentiments described on this newsgroup
and elsewhere and, as the west paid attention to Gorbachev, so will
attention be paid to Doug and his partisans. Indeed, such actions may
well contribute to elevating the Baha'i religion above sectarian and
personal partisanship, as was hoped by the founder of the religion.
And, if Doug and Co. continue to behave in a
manner opposing the
freedom of thought and expression within the Baha'i Faith, attacking
liberal-democracy, etc., attention will still be paid to them, as it
currently is, and the similarity of such behaviour to the actions of
previous despicable regimes will continue to be noted.
Write to the best of your ability, describe as
fully as you are
able, elucidate to the utmost of your capacity the theories and the
practises of Baha'i leadership. If they are behaving worthily, anyone
at all will be able to convince humanity of this; if they are behaving
harmfully no one will be able to convince unbiased observers that their
oppressive, divisive, harmful action is beneficial.
May they provide you and others with material
worthy to present.
All the Best,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Bingo! (was: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the
Millennium)
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:42 AM
Greetings.
Your statement as to the election of Baha'i leadership
may be your
understanding and it is valid in this non-absolutist sense. It is not the
understanding of many others who consider themselves Baha'is. It is, in
the
estimation of the Solar Guard, at the root of the current sectarianism
within the movement begun by Baha'u'llah. Overcoming your fundamentalist
insistence that the literal texts you believe applicable to this issue and
those which you ignore as being unconnected with it (or trumped by those
you favour) freeze the electoral pattern of your religion in pre-modernism
has divided you and has permitted the totalitarian membership for life (or
as long as personally desired) of an old boys' club of fundamentalists.
This is in the best interests of such an old boys' club; it has been
demonstrated to be against the intent of Baha'u'llah, except to those
interpreting this intent as the formation of a fundamentalist sect
controlled by an old boy's club.
We find the thought that the formation of a
fundamentalist sect, the
insistence on silent compliance with a fundamentalist agenda (or exlusion
from membership), discrimination against women, opposition to liberal-
democracy, to the harmony of faith and reason, to the independent
investigation of truth, etc. is the promotion of the Baha'i
teachings quite remarkable. According to this method of defining such
teachings, one would be most likely to find virgins in brothels.
You are free to think and to say what you like,
and we repeat that
your definite statement is not the Baha'i position, although it may be one
of a number of personal opinions held by individuals saying they are
Baha'is.
We stress the importance of the permission of the
expression, within
the Baha'i Faith, of all personal opinions on such topics. Refusal
to
allow such freedom of thought and expression is one indication that the
individuals so interfering in personal thought and expression are unfit
for leadership, that is their leadership is harmful to humanity.
Loving Greetings,
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
(patk9018@my-deja.com) writes:
>
The Center of the Cause does promote those teachings
> and is elected consistent with the guidance given by Baha'u'llah and
> thus 'Abdu'l Baha as well.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Saturday, July 08, 2000 11:57 AM
Greetings, Rlittle.
Have you read THE PROMISED DAY IS COME? Were Shoghi
Effendi alive, he
would castigate Doug Martin and his colleagues with the same vehemence
with
which he lashed out at the fundamentalists and the despots of previous
generations.
Have you read THE EPISTLE TO THE SON OF THE WOLF? Were
Baha'u'llah
alive, he would use the same language to denounce Doug Martin and his
colleagues for hounding, harrassing and maligning those who demonstrate
that the harmony of humanity is incompatible with fundamentalist
despotism.
Altering Baha'u'llah's vision of a golden age of human
maturity into
yet another re-run of tyrannical oppression and sectarian animosity is
indeed reprehensible.
May every human being clearly perceive the extent to
which the spirit
of this age and species repudiates tyrannical fundamentalist sectarianism.
Loving Greetings,
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> Is there anyone who can read this passage and still consider that
> slander and backbiting and vilification and demonization are
"meet and
> seemly?"
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 1:38 PM
Greetings, Brian.
Many thanks for your comments.
"Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
> I put it to you that the basic beliefs of Christians everywhere can
result in
> unity only if we concentrate on the Bible, but that people are
divided (and
> tyrannized by their respective AO) because of divisions caused by the
minds of
> humans which interpret the Holy Writ for the "benefit" of
others. One looks at
> the Orange order marches in Northern Ireland, and wonders what is
going on
> between their ears.
The important concepts introduced by Baha'u'llah
include harmony as
the goal instead of uniformity, the recognition that individuals, by
nature,
will have a vast variety of understandings and that no one understanding
should be imposed as the exclusive authoritative one; such impositions,
contrary to human nature, have been quite destructive in the past; people
must be allowed, encouraged to seek independent understanding of reality
and to speak freely their ever-changing personal perception of truth, also
listening, or at least allowing to be spoken, each other human's personal
awareness of truth.
> The danger I see comes from those who would reject, modify or
abrogate the
> words of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, put them into
"historical
> perspective"
No, the danger comes from those who would
deny other human beings
the freedom to seek independently for truth, those who believe they know
the real perspective of the words of Baha'u'llah, etc. and if they hear
some other thoughts then these other thoughts are the rejection,
modification
or abrogation of such words. In my opinion, those who seek to squelch the
freedom of the followers of Baha'u'llah to think and to share their
thoughts have rejected, modified and abrogated the words of Baha'u'llah
and
have tossed away one of the chief means for the achievement and
preservation
of human harmony.
The concept that one understanding alone is
permitted to be spoken and
all other understandings exclude one from the community has been attempted
with the full force of totalitarian regimes, has been condemned by
Baha'u'llah and has been demonstrated in the laboratory of human
experience
to result in the opposite of human harmony. Human minds are not made that
way. We are not clones. We see things differently. Accepting this variety
of views is a means by Baha'u'llah for the peace, harmony and prosperity
of
this planet. By rejecting Baha'u'llah's methods, Baha'i fundamentalists
have
transformed his vision into one in which contention, confrontation and
disharmony are inevitable.
> I see the blindness of those who would pretend to see, and who attack
the very
> institutions that Baha'u'llah created and defined
As far as I know, the focus of discussion
has not been an opposition
to the institutions Baha'u'llah defined. I consider it perfectly
legitimate
for humans to think and to express their thoughts, within the Baha'i
Faith,
for a variety of institutional forms. However, so far, what I have
observed
in these discussions is the assertion that the Baha'i world should now be
blessed by the actual institutions created and defined by Baha'u'llah,
instead of by individuals using the names of such institutions but as far
from such institutions as one (or at least I) can imagine. In place of a
Universal House of Justice, we have some guys who are administering as if
they were a typical tyrannical cult leadership. They use the name, but
humans
have long suffered from leaders using names and words, but being and doing
the opposite.
When we see visionary leadership, accepting
the views of Baha'u'llah
so as to provide an over-arching accepting harmony of humanity, when we
observe that those imaginative (some would say inspired) concepts of
Baha''llah: the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought
and expression, the harmony of science and religion (reason and faith),
etc.
are preferred to dictatorial imposition of one fundamentalist
interpretation,
to one exclusivist understanding, to one divisive dogmatic definition,
then
we will know that the institutions created and defined by Baha'u'llah
don't
merely have their names applied to their opposites, but really exist.
I have not seen anyone here attack the
institutions created and
defined by Baha'u'llah. Just as one may object to a drunk at the wheel of
a car stuck in the ditch without finding fault with the car, so those who
have failed to provide us with a Universal House of Justice, instead
replicating the attitudes of the most objectionable and oppressive regimes
in human history (generating the same divisiveness and diminishment of
respect for leadership as was generated by those regimes) find themselves
pointedly called to drive on the Baha'i highway and get out of the ditch
of
fundamentalism, suppression of human thought, exclusivity, confrontation
and disunity. May the institution of the Universal House of Justice at
long
last appear resplendent before the expectant gaze of humanity. It is not
attacked, it is long overdue.
All the Best,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2000 11:44 AM
Greetings, Brian.
Many thanks for your comments.
Brian F. Walker (dr.walker@fsandp.remove.com) writes:
> If we regard the UHJ as just another group of politicians <pfui>
then I
> would be behind you on the barricades and shouting and jumping up and
down
> (albeit from the standpoint of a non-Baha'i) to effect reform.
Reason and faith are in harmony. Blind faith is
forbidden to Baha'is.
When the observation of reason reveals that the current lot in Haifa are
manifesting precisely the same attitudes and behavior as totalitarian
politicians (in actual fact, democratic leadership is one of the great
achievements of humanity; I do not malign Canada's prime-minister, and
one reason is that we are free to agree or disagree with him and to say
so;
leaders who insist their errors are correct and may not be pointed out are
unacceptable wheresoever they may be, in the Kremlin, on Mt. Carmel or
anywhere else).
I absolutely reject the position that you or any
other human being,
or committee of human beings, pretending they are doing so according to
the words of deity, may dictate whether any other soul is a Baha'i,
Buddhist or Confucianist. The fact that the allegedly universal faith
of Baha'u'llah is now being administered by men who have done so and who
advocate that some believers of Baha'u'llah tell other believers of
Baha'u'llah that these other believers are not Baha'is unless they accept
that the errors of Doug Martin and his colleagues are literally correct
is one indication these guys have behaved as cult leaders instead of as
members of an all-embracing Universal House of Justice. They have divided
the movement of world harmony, exactly in the manner of the most
objectionable politicians.
We have been through this on this newsgroup.
Infallibility, in the
sense of inerrancy, is NOT the correct meaning of what was said about the
decrees of Doug Martin, Hooper Dunbar, et al. In addition, I've already
posted here, that the words may be seen as addressed to Doug Martin,
Hooper
Dunbar et al. They may be perceived as being directed to act AS IF they
were
the infallible source of all good; this may be understood as strong
spiritual
advice TO THEM. And, they have so far not followed it very well. When they
rein in the fundamentalists, when they follow the universalist teachings
of
Baha'u'llah, instead of promulgating a dogma that humans cannot be Baha'is
unless they accept a literalist fundamentalist viewpoint and take the
behavior of Doug Martin, Hooper Dunbar, et al. as the only possibly
correct
course, as dictated by deity (Oghma, great god of wisdom, great champion
of
our people, great source of eloquence, may I be empowered to overcome so
nightmarish a vision) then will they be contributing to benefit instead of
adding to human suffering.
> I think, however, that the analogy is completely wrong. I believe
that
> Baha'u'llah was right, that the UHJ is not man-made, but a
Divinely
> ordained body, which does not play by the Old World Order rules.
The
> motives which are ascribed to it are not what motivate it.
They are pointedly called to account
because it is evident to reason
that they are playing by Old World rules, and the most objectionable of
Old
World rules at that. They are the cause of confrontation, division,
oppression; they are the ones who have redefined the religion into a
sect.
>>The opinions of those liberals who were hounded out of the Baha'i
>>Faith, and in my case booted out when I resisted all efforts to
get me
>>to resign, are legitimate within a Baha'i belief system. Human
minds are
>>obviously capable of arriving at them, and human hearts which feel
that
>>the founder of the religion intended there to be harmony between
faith
>>and reason (religion and science), the independent investigation
of
>>reality, unfettered by orthodoxies either scientific or religious,
the
>>freedom of thought and expression, the recognition of the
over-arching
>>harmony of the species, rather than a uniform acceptance of
dictated
>>dogmatic belief, living the life, rather than discriminating on
the
>>excuse of fundamentalist literalism's mistranslation, when it
comes to
>>equality of women and men replacing male's only at the top, etc.
are
>>demonstrably in accord with the influences and the movement of
>>Baha'u'llah.
> Wow! OK ... for the most part I agree with you, but consider this
Michael:
> let us assume that the future of the world is bleak indeed unless we
have a
> new style of government and leadership.
Nonsense. Liberal-democracy has been shown to be
one of the greatest
achievements with which humanity has been blessed. Why does the UN keep
saying Canada is the best place to live?
The new thing you assert is as old as the hills;
it is the childish
tyranny of the weak and the insecure. It is the oppression of those who
have been divinely created to see things differently from Doug Martin and
Hooper Dunbar, etc. It is the attempt to shut people up, drive them away
and define them as other, alien, non- The future of humanity is likely not
bleak, UNLESS fundamentalism, blind faith that deity has given Doug Martin
& Co. the inerrant right to impose their opinions, silencing all
others, is
inflicted upon a species that has so long endured despots and tyrannical
rule.
>The woes facing us (environmental
> political and social) are immense, and need a new cure. Let us
further
> assume that the new world order we need depends upon *consultation*,
which
> Shoghi Effendi assures us is the only really new part of our
religion, all
> else being a renewal of revelation.
Some consultation! Unless one caws a
fundamentalist party line, one
is not included. Great Epona, protectress, shield, sword, defend our
people
from such anacronism, such Orwellian newspeak.
Consultation means listening to all
points of view. Doug Martin,
Hooper Dunbar and their colleagues have sought to impose one point of
view.
This is not new at all. It is not in the least required by humanity at
this,
or any other stage, of its existence.
> Let us go on to assume that if
> Baha'u'llah is right, then the UHJ will play a role in that new
world
> order, using consultation and assured of Divine guidance.
Doug Martin, Hooper Dunbar et al have tossed away
whatever divine
guidance they had and instead of the novel view of Baha'u'llah that all
humans are part of a vastly varied divinely created garden, have sought to
grow only a field of fundamentalism.
I absolutely deny that it is basic to Baha'i
belief that the
redefinition of the Baha'i Faith into a fundamentalist sect must be the
opinion of the totality of the membership. Of course, as old world
communists, as the partisans of Stalin, it could be imposed, by force,
that one had to keep opinions quiet or suffer the consequences. This is
not new and it is not to the advantage of humanity.
Were Baha'u'llah to raise up a Universal House of
Justice that really
behaved as the guides of the planet, that actually promoted the
independent investigation of truth, the harmony of reason and faith
(defining this a bit more acceptably than believing whatsoever Orwellian
newspeak emerges from Mt Carmel is reasonably inerrant), that practices
the principles of freedom of thought and expression, the true equality of
women and men, the veritable diversity of valid viewpoints, etc, then,
perhaps such a body would deserve some consideration. As long as the guys
now in charge can't even get along with those who believe in their own
prophet what possible worth are they to the world at large?
Let them get out of the ditch, toss away the
bottle of fundamentalism
and then perhaps they can ask others to observe how splendidly they
drive. >
> I know - a lot of assumptions, but I think they are basic to Baha'i
belief.
> Now, to the point.
> I believe that the reason you, personally, have had problems is not
so much
> because of what you have said, but more because of how you have said
it. I
> think that part of the reason is because you have assumed the UHJ is
part
> of the old world order - and you have treated them as such.
Absolutely wrong. Read the sequence of my
writings in order. I assumed
they were a Universal House of Justice. They responded as old world
politicians. Only then, did I understand, because I am not one incapable
of modifying my opinions according to new information, that the Universal
House of Justice called for by Baha'u'llah does not exist.
> I also assume that you have had the most honourable of intentions,
and that
> you act now in a spirit of righting wrongs. But if I am right in
having
> made the above asumptions, then it is possible that the way back to
peace
> is to accept the new world order for all its beauty,
Oghma, Epona, Lugh, all the
warrior gods of our ancient past, ever
preserve humanity from such a nightmare as the oppression, tyranny and
discord of such a terrible beauty. Arm us in mind, body and spirit ever
to resist, oppose and vanquish such horror.
May anyone who assumes that
diversity of views may be squelched,
that reason may be extinguished by fanatical fundamentalism, that women
may by dominated by an all-male hierarchy, that the liberal arts may be
vilified, that dictatorial dogma may be imposed on this species be granted
the full realization that such demonic efforts cannot succeed, that only
a cult would attempt them and that, with the blessing of deity and the
full approval even of Baha'u'llah, humans will die rather than submit to
so great an evil.
> and work - with that
> diversity you uniquely manifest (tongue in cheek but sincerely meant)
- for
> that abundant and diverse garden. Consultation instead of
confrontation.
> Unity in diversity instead of diverse disunity.
Orwellian newspeak again. It is not Baha'i
liberals who had problems
with diversity. The origin of this intolerance lies with the
fundamentalists who hounded the liberals and even legislated them out of
the organization they control. It is not Juan, etc. who need to show
greater acceptance of diversity. It is Doug Martin and his colleagues.
This ball is on their side of the net. Let them manifest the attributes
of an ordinary follower of Baha'u'llah, to say nothing of those charged
with behaving AS IF they were the wellspring of divine guidance, a mighty
example and source of human harmony. This is an entirely different concept
from the thought that one must think a certain way, be silent or be gone.
>> .... is an historical testimony to their failure to guide the
religion
>>as a universalist movement, according to the broad-minded vision
of the
>>founder of the faith, but instead they have repeated the behaviour
of
>>those whom Baha'u'llah assessed to be in error and an oppressive
burden
>>to their people. As Juan once said, yes, it may be possible to
alter the
>>Baha'i Faith so that it is a fundamentalist sect, but, then,
doesn't it
>>cease being relevant and become redundant?
> Again, I see your point, and the horror you express, but I truly
believe
> the UHJ is leading us to achieve that very beauty you desire. My wish
is
> for you to see the beauty I see, not the horror you see, and that you
were
> in that vanguard, watering those flowers.
How can you say they are leading us
to beauty, when what they have
done is drive people away, define only one fundamentalist viewpoint as
acceptable, turned a universal religion into a fundamentalist dogma, etc.
etc. This is contrary to reason, which, as I understand Baha'i, is
contrary
to Baha'i. One may have blind faith in cult leaders, even to the extent of
committing suicide. Blind faith, contrary to reason, is a proof the
individual or the entity may be assessed to be non-Baha'i, according to
the
original definition of the Faith.
May those who would call themselves
Baha'is be granted the insight
to realize such a word requires open-mindedness, understanding that no
one,
not even Doug Martin in committee with eight other men, may oppose
diversity
of views or impose thought control, censorship, suppression of thought and
expression, etc. etc.
To the Future,
Michael
> All the best,
>
Brightest Blessings to you and yours.
> Brian
>
> (Do you think we are all that far apart?)
If you posit that Doug Martin and
Company may impose fundamentalism,
we are worlds apart. If you accept that a world spiritual assembly
promotes
the rainbow of human understanding, we are not in the least apart.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 12:44 PM
Dia Dhuit, Pat.
No, I base it on his opposition to fundamentalists such
as the Wolf and
ibn Wolf, his enunciation of metaphorical interpretations of scripture,
his
assertion that individual understandings of scripture, god and religious
concepts (including one's perception of the nature of Baha'u'llah himself)
should be recognized, his promotion of the principles of the independent
investigation of truth and the freedom of thought and expression, and his
declaration that the reason he opened his mouth was to demonstrate the
underlying inclusive harmony of the human species. Doug Martin, Hooper
Dunbar and their colleagues have behaved in the exact same exclusive,
literalist fundamentalist manner as those castigated by Baha'u'llah, as
if their theological heritage may be traced through ibn Wolf and father,
instead of as the spiritual offspring of Baha'u'llah. The Baha'i Covenant,
so literally cherished by the fundamentalists in charge, includes the
concept that if the one in line to succeed does not manifest the
attributes
of his ancestry, then such a lack demonstrates his lack of fitness to
succeed. It is obvious, to any non-cultist, that those demonstrating their
spiritual heritage is from the family of ibn Wolf, instead of Baha'u'llah,
have no mandate to positions of leadership in the Baha'i Faith, although
there may be some theological positions they may legitimately compete for
in the fundamentalist religions.
Slan,
Michael
Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
>
> As far as your predictions regarding Baha'u'llah, would you base that
on the
> influence of Sufi pirs? British intervention in Egypt? tobacco
concessions in
> Iran? or something else?
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Sunday, July 16, 2000 9:11 AM
Hmmm, do you understand that there are other things than your literal
interpretation of the scripture. You already received the answer that
the very writings you consider the divine standard include THE EPISTLE
TO THE SON OF THE WOLF, and in addition there is THE PROMISED DAY IS COME
which contains quotes as well as the writing of Shoghi Effendi, quite
pointedly commenting on the failings of others. These are among numerous
passages in Baha'i literature, scripture and commentary by Shoghi Effendi,
calling leaders, political and religious, to account in terms quite
similar
to those being used concerning the misdeeds of Baha'i fundamentalists now
in power.
It is legitimate for those in control of
the Baha'i religion to be
treated as Baha'u'llah treated their spiritual ancestors, fundamentalists
in other religions.
If you have some other opinion and can cite
some other passages as
to how you or Doug Martin think you or Doug Martin may respond to Baha'i
fundamentalism, by all means, as long as your interpretation of such
passages does not incite you to break the law of the land, live your life.
Do not demand that your understanding or Doug's understanding is the only
Baha'i understanding and demand everyone else must follow your personal
understanding of such passages.
There are several basic principles to
modify your premise about the
priority of Baha'i scripture: primarily, one must accept that human minds
being divinely created different will perceive such writings in a wide
variety of manners and that this variety is valid and efforts to impose
a single understanding cannot succeed, unless success is defined as the
uniform dogma of a sect, such a sect being the consequence of the failure
of the mission of Baha'u'llah to achieve human harmony.
Additional factors, such as the
metaphorical and poetical
exaggeration of inspired text and the essential requirement to harmonize
spiritual literature with spiritual principles necessitate the avoidance
of actions based on literal readings contrary to humanity and ethics.
That is, by principle one cannot place an absolute priority for one's
actions on literal text if the literal text (for example, "Leave not
a
single unbeliever alive in the Central provinces of Iran,") appears
to
justify what is already known to be unethical.
I hope the above is clear. If not, don't
hesitate to say so.
To the Future,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> May I ask just what post you are responding to? I asked questions,
> rather than "insist(ed) that one opinion of the writings is the
only
> correct one." Perhaps you did not understand my questions,
something
> quite likely in newsgroups.
>
> So, to restate the previous post, I stated an a priori: that the
> Writings of the Baha'i Faith are to be considered as the divine
> standard by which all else is judged.
>
> I then asked you what the Baha'i Writings say concerning how one
ought
> to respond to an injustice, whether real or perceived; and, I asked
you
> what those same Writings say concerning backbiting, and if possible,
> how we can determine if we or someone else is commiting backbiting.
>
> You have raised an interesting point that ought to be expored as
well,
> in my opinion: You said that Baha'u'llah opposed despotism and this
> seems to be fundamental to your position. How did He oppose
despotism?
> (quotations will do nicely).
>
> I hope that by sticking to what the Writings say, we can avoid
slippage
> down that slope that leads into personal attacks and denunciations,
and
> remain on flat, friendly ground.
>
> Ok?
>
> Robert A. Little
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Exposing Mr Mahdi Part 1
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:49 AM
Greetings, Comrade Adelard.
Many thanks for your comments.
Yes, I recall one famous fundamentalist telling me that
the UHJ (by
which Doug Martin and Co. were intended) had no sense of humor at all.
Well, Gee, Comrade, don't you think one takes something seriously when
one spends some time at it, considers it, takes actions, considering the
consequences, accepting the consequences, hmmm.
"Keep insulting the institutions of Baha'u'llah"
well, as I've said
before, I haven't really posted anything saying that the institutions of
Baha'u'llah are anything except in need of coming into existence, having
a reality more substantial than the current verbal cloneship to, Dear
Comrade, entities familiar to Soviet citizens and readers of 1984.
I would like to share one comment made a while back on
a pagan
cyberspace planet. It concerns this concept of "insult". This
pagan posted
the opinion that one is not really insulted unless the offensive remark is
true. In other cases one may simply dismiss the offending words as of no
factual connection to one's self. He used as the example, "But he
said my
mother was a whore?" and the response, "Well, was she?"
So, if some guy chattering away on an e-list or
newsgroup says that
the men in charge of the Baha'i Faith are acting more in the manner of
totalitarian dictators replete with the oppression of the Baha'i
principles of independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought
and expression, the harmony of science and religion, the equality of women
and men, etc., well, if this is false say so, demonstrate that really
Allison Marshall has not been removed from the rolls of the Baha'is in
New Zealand by the guys who really are not clones of the old Politburo
members, that really there is no censorship within the Baha'i Faith and
historians may write books about Baha'u'llah without getting nasty
letters composed by Doug Martin or anyone else in Haifa signing his name
"Department of the Secretariat", etc.
And, if you tell me or if Doug Martin tells me that
what I say is
insulting well, perhaps it that what I write is
true.
I was astonished when one member of a Baha'i e-list
(soon after my
unwarned notice arrived saying my name had been deleted from the list
of Baha'is) posted that he had contacted someone in Totonto (HQ of
Canadian NSA which sent me the notice on behalf of the UHJ) to seek
more details and had been told the members of the UHJ had found my
communications with them insulting. Go back and read what I wrote. This
is written in a very polite style. So, is my pagan friend correct, and
did the issues I raised (with all the delicacy an inspired and careful
writer could attempt) insult because they were true?
And, again, you have the complete freedom to express
your opinion,
if such it is, that your interpretation of the words of the Will and
Testament of Abdu'l Baha is that Doug Martin and his buddies may decree
anything they please and behave in any manner they desire. And, anyone
else is equally free to express any other opinion, including the one that
the Institution of the Universal House of Justice is required by the Will
and Testament to seek to live up to Baha'i standards and principles, and
these include promoting freedom of thought and expression among all humans
instead of seeking clones of good Soviet citizens to compose the cult's
membership rolls.
Those who criticized the attitude and behaviour of
despots were not
attacking Mother Russia or any other country afflicted by such leadership.
Ditto for those objecting to the despotic attitudes and behaviour by Doug
Martin and his buddies. One calling for something using the name of the
institutions written about by Baha'u'llah actually to be recognizeable by
Baha'u'llah instead of by Stalin is not attacking the institutions that
Baha'u'llah called for. Doug and Co. are lucky that Baha'u'llah is not
alive to give them a piece of his mind, because he'd give them an earful
they could really find insulting, and all of it true, Comrade.
To the Future,
Michael
"Adelard R" (postmaster@ishop-usa.com) writes:
>>I'm at a loss to understand why you two are defending
>
> I am still asking Mr Nima hazini, why could you get at loss,
when you
> really know these individuals are not sincere and don't take
seriously the
> Will and Testament of Abdu'l-baha and keep insulting the
Institutions of
> Baha'u'llah and our beloved Universal House of Justice .
What do you
> expect Nima?
>
> Thank you though for your sincerity on this thread .
>
> Adelard R
> Adelard.Rubangura@unisys.com
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Exposing Nima
Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:01 AM
Greetings, Hooper.
Uhm, well, I am interested not so much in the all too
prevalent ad
hominems in general, as this is a typical fundamentalist Baha'i error.
If reason and faith are to agree and if faith minus reason is merely
superstition, then the basic foundation of much fundamentalist argument
is pure superstition, condemned by the very founders of the religion. For,
if one examines such argumentation, a great deal of it, in complete
contradiction to both elementary formal logic and to the basic principles
of Baha'i consultation, is directed at who is speaking, instead of what
is being said.
So, whether it is the ghost of the Ayutullah Khomeini
or an alter ego
of Hooper Dunbar or the president of a theological college in Ohio or a
miner in the Ukraine or wrote these references to Nima's personality, such
references are absolutely irrelevant to the thoughts posted here and the
positions taken here by Nima or anyone posting under his name. It is pure
and simple superstition to focus on the individual saying something and
not what is said.
Now, as I said, what I find most interesting is not the
usual blatant
and irrelevent superstition per se, but the specific things that are
supposed to render the thoughts of Nima void.
Let's look at these:
Mr Mahdi (mrmahdi@aol.com) writes:
> Don't worry folks, a grown man who is mostly like still living with
his parents
> in the land down under is nothing to take seriously.
As one who has spent much of my free time over the past
six months
seeking to get a glimpse of traditional Chinese religion, thought and life
and its similarities and dissimilarities to the ancestral ways of my
Celtic
ancestors, I find this reference to abiding in one's paternal home quite
fascinating. Supposedly, Hooper or whoever, believes that one's thoughts
may be discounted because one has not moved out of the parental home, an
action that would seem quite bizarre, possibly unfilial, to a great many
of
the people who have ever lived on this planet.
Hmmm, is there something wrong with Australians,
Hooper? This is of a
class of argument that suggests that everything someone says may be
discounted on the grounds that person is from Iran or Egypt or Greece,
etc.
Such national prejudice is what may be discounted.
>A cult prone vagabond who
> had to borrow money from a family (as well as other things) is
nothing to lose
> sleep over.
Well, can we have it two ways, first, he stays in the
ancestral
residence, then he leaves it and wanders around presumably away from the
ancestral home? However, you know whether one is sedentary or a nomad,
the thoughts of this individual (or of this people) are equally worthy
of consideration and not to be disregarded on the grounds that they are
the thoughts of one settled or one ambulatory.
What? that someone is considered trustworthy and
meritorious enough
to be the recipient of the charity you suggest is supposed to render his
remarks void? A fascinating suggestion. And, uhm, by the same reasoning,
this fellow Muhammed, this cult vagabond who wandered up to Medina and
received charity there, would you suggest we discount anything he said,
too?
> Let him rant and rave and cry about why he can't get a teaching
> job.
What, Hooper, I would have thought, according to the
anti-scholastic
sentiments within fundamentalist circles, that we'd be told to ignore what
Nima was saying were he to have a job as a teacher. So, were he something
other than a teacher, this ought, by fundamentalist reasoning, to render
his comments of greater interest.
As I noted earlier, all references to Nima's
personality rather than
to his thoughts are superstitous irrelevancies.
> Nima, doesn't telemarketing pay minimum wage thse days?
As I understand sales, of which telemarketing is one
branch, you get
healthy bonuses, if you are successful at it. Hooper, whether you are a
telemarketer, a college professor, a carpenter or a UHJ member has no
bearing on the validity or the invalidity of your positions. Your
expressed opinions may be assessed on their own.
I can appreciate the enormous chellenge this raises for
fundamentalists
all too often feeling the flawless, infallible response to thoughts
expressed is to talk about the person speaking. However, according to
reason (what is actually taught in formal logic) and religion (what at
least used to be taught in Baha'i deepenings on Baha'i consultation) such
references to who, rather than what, is superstitious irrelevency
I will repeat that I find the specific grounds of this
Nima ad hominem
quite fascinating.
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:57 AM
Greetings, Rlittle.
Many thanks for your comments, and acknowledgements
that you are posting
to TRB, replying to others' post, demonstrating that you at least are
reading
what others are posting here. However, if I understand you correctly you
are
upholding the policy that there should not be freedom of speech within the
Baha'i religion.
If by vertical you did not mean the creation of
additional layers
between Doug and Co. and the ordinary people, but rather the development
of
diversity within local communities, hats off to you.
Factually, of course, it is very incorrect to suggest
that few places
exist without fifteen adult Baha'is. Even in the US, I would be surprised
were one per cent of localities to possess fifteen adult Baha'is, and in
such vast nations as China the number of such localities is likely minute.
In addition, while it's a great thing to continue the
long standing
Baha'i concern with developing local communities, your statement as to the
novelty of this is also incorrect. It has always been a Baha'i concern. I
would be astonished if your Baha'i community, however marvellously
developed it may be, can compare with Ashkabad a hundred years ago for
the vitality and diversity of the local community activities.
Also, local community development is not incompatible
with greater
practise of Baha'i principles. Indeed, the extent to which you insist that
the expression of varying views is something passe and prohibitive of the
building of a community, to that extent are you revealing the resistence
you are exhibiting to the growth of the vision of Baha'u'llah.
The ability of individuals to think various thoughts
and to express these
thoughts is essential. It, of course, is a natural ploy of despots to
assert
that their despotic, unprincipled measures are fixed and no one is
permitted to show what may otherwise be done. This is simply factually
incorrect. Neither what was fixed by those ruling Germany during the 30s
and the first half of the 40s, nor what was fixed by those ruling Russia
through much of the 20th Century has necessarily remained. Likewise,
however attractive it may be for Doug and Co. to envision that their
attempt
to freeze their religion in a similar totalitarian blueprint (devoid of
newspeak, this is what your impression of moving ahead with decisions
made for the world boils down to) is not at all, the gods be praised,
something that all of humanity will have to grin and bear.
Thoughts may be thought, ideas may be expressed and the
consequences
of the seed of totalitarianism can be observed. The day will come when
what Doug and Co. wish you to believe is fixed will be as melted as the
similar ice from Nazi and Soviet regimes.
I will happily applaud you and Doug and Co. or their
successors, when
your words are not mere Orwellian newspeak and really you are showing you
are striving to create something according to the vision of Baha'u'llah,
Abdu'l Baha etc. This vision is the democratic respect, within the Baha'i
Faith, for the independent investigation of truth, the harmony of faith
and reason, the freedom of thought and expression, the equality of women
and men, etc. When this is evident, I will be happy to applaud. When all
you and Doug and Co. have to offer are such words of opposite meaning as
were the style of Goebbels and Co., I'll continue to underline how what
you claim is the opposite of what you do. You say you offer the vision
of
Baha'u'llah and you provide something more familiar to Stalin.
To Baha'u'llah's Vision,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> Hi Michael
>
> Well, we disagree. I seem to be following the exhortations you
mention,
> concerning freedom of expression, eh?
>
> Think about it, please: For decades, the advice has been that fifteen
> adult Baha'is were sufficient for a community. Baha'is have been
> dispersing for a very long time, with the result that they now live
in
> nearly as many places as Christians. They are running out of places
to
> disperse to.
>
> The need to disperse is still there, and dispersal is continuing, but
> the need for communities to form, to build up the structure of a
Baha'i
> society is taking on more importance. That is what we have seen in
the
> goals of the Four Year Plan just finished, the current plan now
> underway, and that is the focus for the next twenty years.
Integration
> of believers into community, and the development of community into a
> structure which can effect change in society. Change, Michael, is
> inevitable.
>
> This is a Faith which requires that one rolls up one's sleeves and
jump
> into the fray. You're going to get scratched and bruised now and
again,
> but it is the only way to raise up the edifice of the future which
> Baha'u'llah has charted for humanity. You are most probably right
that
> some of the people in there with you aren't reading the blueprints
the
> same way you are. So what? You have most strongly expressed your own
> opinions on the way things ought to be, and probably always have, as
> have others, but at some point someone has to make an authoritative
> decision.
>
> Have you considered the process of consultation in any of this? Are
you
> aware - you most probably are - of the requirement for relinquishing
> ownership of one's opinion once it has been given, within the
structure
> of consultation? Are you aware that the collective force of a unified
> community going in the wrong direction is preferable (as I understand
> it in the Baha'i Faith) to a disunited community going in various
> directions?
>
> You seem to call for the freedom of individuals to hold their own
> opinion, a freedom you correctly state Baha'u'llah grants you. But
> unless all those/us isolated individuals agree at some point to build
> something, nothing will ever get built. And in order to build,
they/we
> will have to follow the vision of Baha'u'llah, and the blueprint laid
> out by the interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Baha', Shoghi Effendi and the
> Universal House of Justice.
>
> Everything you rail against is the inevitable result of the growth of
> the Faith. You came into the Baha'i Faith at a time of what I call
> horizontal growth, or outward growth of individuals. Now we are
> witnissing the very beginning of a growth of community, which entails
> Baha'is working together, as against seeing each other now and again
at
> Feast or holy day observances. Working together in ever larger and
more
> complex arrangements. Vertical development.
>
> I think history will sort out whether or not we are progressing in
the
> right direction, or in a direction you have been pointing in. I don't
> walk in your shoes, nor you mine, so it is very difficult for either
of
> us to judge the other, and judging is certainly not our
responsibility
> in any event.
>
> With respect,
>
> Robert A. Little
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 7:45 AM
Greetings, Rlittle.
Many thanks for your comments.
You wrote:
>
One of the differences I see between us is that I
> _choose_ to participate in the construction of the future as I
> understand Baha'u'llah to have revealed it, and you _choose_ not to.
Actually, factually, it was Doug and Co.
that decreed that my name
be removed from the membership rolls of the Baha'i community. I chose in
response to seek to follow the more beneficial path of our
pre-monotheistic
and very largely tolerant ancestors and I chose to continue to exercise
the
principle of the freedom of thought and expression here, in order that the
potential evil that you are striving to construct may be clearly exposed.
How in the world could anyone expect me to
participate in the
construction of a global fundamentalist state, a place where the most
intrinsic and essential principles enunciated by Baha'u'llah are ignored
while despots discriminate against women, trample on the rights of the
individual, impose one literalist interpretation of text, oppress scholars
and others daring enough to exercise their god-given right to freedom of
thought and expression, etc.?
I stand at the Tree Ring and express
gratitude to my ancestors that
while still alive I was able to cease contributing to so great an evil.
And, in my life, in my studies, in my
interaction with diverse
humanity, in my posts here, I continue to try to promote all that was
best in both the ancestral ways of all our peoples and in the so
beneficial
intent of Baha'u'llah.
May they who call themselves Baha'is
likewise strive to live and
to create not something that would be a horrible affliction for a species
that has already endured so much division, despotic oppression, narrow
minded fundamentalism, but something really inculcating the broad-minded
and effective vision and the essential principles of Baha'u'llah. May they
insist that anyone who would guide them as the living leaders of their
religion live, breathe and behave in a manner that accords with all that
is worthy, so that were anyone to denounce them as narrow-minded cultists,
the words and deeds of such leaders could not be produced as proofs of
their
remoteness from the over-arching Baha'i principles bestowed upon humanity,
but as undeniable evidence that Baha'u'llah has the influence to produce a
true harvest of humble leaders guiding so as to contribute to a divinely
endowed, humane and widely tolerant civilization.
May today find you very well, may tomorrow
treat you even more
kindly and may each day after that be better than the one it succeeds.
To the Future,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Saturday, August 05, 2000 8:37 AM
Greetings, Robert.
Many thanks for your message.
Primarily, the evil may be seen in your fundamentalist
reply. It is
evil to impose one exclusivist interpretation of text (and by the way,
are you aware the UHJ is forbidden to interpret Baha'i scripture; they
are supposed to be a legislative body and not to stray into the realm of
interpretation), intolerant of the divinely created diversity of human
thought, perceptions and understandings. Baha'u'llah said humans were
diverse, called for no one (including you, Doug and Co.,) to impose one
interpretation, and said that even when it came to the most primary Baha'i
concept, what exactly is the nature of Baha'u'llah himself, different
people would have different understandings, and all were valid.
The evil is your insistence that only your
understanding is correct.
Your understanding is one valid understanding, but when you insist it is
the only permissible one, and when you define your understanding as the
understanding of all Baha'is and when Doug and Co. not only stray into the
realm of issuing interpretations, but insisting that these interpretations
are the sole interpretations permitted, and take this to the extent that
they would (if Pat, I believe it was, is to be believed) exclude a Baha'i
in good standing from membership within the broad-minded, tolerant,
universalist movement envisioned by Baha'u'llah, on the grounds that she
posted a book review to a USENET newsgroup, then, yes, indeed, this is a
great evil.
Those who have used their fundamentalist
exclusivist intolerance to
cause the terrible deeds of pogroms, inquisitions and persecutions also
spent time in daily prayer, in reading writings they considered
sacred,
in receiving messages from authorities believing they had the right, or
at least acting as if they had the right, to impose one (usually literal)
interpretation of scripture upon a whole people and to exclude anyone who
was divinely endowed with a different perception.
What they inflicted upon humanity was evil. When
you follow in their
footsteps, instead of building up the open-minded, inclusive, tolerant
vision of Baha'u'llah, you are walking in the path of evil, instead of
seeking to follow the Golden Mean.
Personally, I am a pagan, honouring the spirits,
gods and goddesses
of my ancestors, who seldom, if ever, oppressed each other over matters of
the spirit, until intolerant, exclusivist monotheists planted the seed of
this evil in our lands and raised a terrible harvest from which we are
still suffering. Baha'u'llah sought to transform that evil growth into
a richly diverse and fragrant garden that would provide fragrance to all
of humanity. You, Doug and Co. have rejected this vision of Baha'u'llah
and tried to foster within Baha'u'llah's own universal movement this
poisonous weed of the insistence on one single intolerant, exclusivist
interpretation. I believe Baha'u'llah is ashamed that you who call
yourselves by his name are striving so hard to defeat his purpose and
have to such an extent opposed the more open-minded of his declared
believers that you (speaking generally, fundamentalists, in general) have
hounded many out of the organization using his name, even, in at least two
cases legislating them out of the movement, when they could not be bullied
into resigning on their own.
I do not consider myself a Baha'i, though it
would have been very
interesting to see what would have been the dialog between me and pagan
thought, had Doug and Co. allowed Baha'u'llah's name to be used for the
broad-minded, universal and tolerant movement He initiated. In other
words, is the modern Neo-Pagan revival, a turning of the wheel again to
a pattern of thought that would, in any case, have received such strong
validation, or is it largely the distortion of Baha'u'llah's more up to
date correction of exclusivist monotheism into just one more
fundamentalist
intolerance which leaves the field clear for the revalidation of the
spiritual tolerance, etc. of our ancestors?
Here's a toast to tolerance and understanding,
peace and prosperity,
health and happiness. May you never again insist that your personal
opinion, or Doug Martin's personal opinion, or the
"interpretation" of
the current or future leaders of the largest Baha'i sect defines all
Baha'is. May you never again ask for literal quotes from scripture with
the intent that only one literal reading of such text is allowed. May you
and those like you whether they prefer to read the Torah, the Bible, the
Koran, Baha'i texts or anything else be inspired by the words they read,
by the gods they believe in, by the so precious humanity of this species
to
accept the fragrant garden of human diversity (even by those of their own
religions) and cease watering with the tears of fellow humans the evil,
the harmful, the poisonous weed of fundamentalist, exclusivist
intolerance.
To the Future,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
>
> I am less able than you to express myself, yet your words merit a
> response, so....
>
> My words:
>
> On a daily basis, Baha'is offer up prayers to God, prayers revealed
by
> the Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha'. On a daily basis they read
and
> study and meditate on the words and teachings, exhortations, tablets,
> letters and books revealed by Baha'u'llah, as well as the
> interpretations of His authorized interpretor, 'Abdu'l-Baha', and the
> Guardian, Shoghi Effendi. On those occasions specifically permitted
in
> writing by Baha'u'llah, where there are no interpretations from
'Abdu'l-
> Baha' or Shoghi Effendi, Baha'is turn to the specific interpretations
> of the Universal House of Justice. Finally, Baha'is regularly
> participate in activities of community life, in myriads of ways,
which
> are based upon the writings of Baha'u'llah, and His authorized
> interpretors.
>
> Several times a year, Baha'is receive letters from the Universal
House
> of Justice, a body which Baha'u'llah called for and which His
followers
> elected into being and reform through a universal election every five
> years. Those letters frequently announce or refer to a plan of action
> which directs Baha'is to strive to achieve particular goals.
Currently,
> those goals center around increased study and meditation of the
> writings upon which this Faith is based, principally the writings of
> Baha'u'llah. The letters invariably quote Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha'
> and/or Shoghi Effendi as the source of authority for any plan of
action
> called for. It would follow then that you believe that the Baha'i
> writings Baha'is read, study and pray have been perverted, thus
> bringing about the evil you discuss.
>
> My understanding of your words lead me to conclude that you consider
> yourself to be a true follower of Baha'u'llah, while those who call
> themselves Baha'is do evil. You consider that you stand for the
> principles He enunciated, Baha'is do not.
>
> I have read your conclusions, but have never read any of the source
> materials you have based those conclusions upon. You are encouraged
to
> cite your sources, i.e., quotations from any of those letters which
> illustrate this claimed evil.
>
> Robert A. Little
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:44 AM
Greetings, Robert.
Many thanks for your comment.
No. Whatever the UHJ decides (including the decision
that a matter
does not fall within its jourisdiction) may be reconsidered at a later
date. The UHJ may not interpret. It may legislate. It may express its
opinions behind such legislation. Such opinions may not be imposed on
any other Baha'i, except in the manner that all ought to attempt to
implement what has been legislated -- within reason, of course.
It is very important to underline the historical fact
that the Baha'i
liberals (many of whom have now been driven out of the organization Doug
and Co. head) insisted that while they held the opinion (contrary to the
opinion of Doug and Co.) that Baha'i principle called for the membership
of
women on the UHJ, still they believed this would come to pass when the
UHJ
so legislated. In other words, none of them did anything. There was
no
holding of conventions to elect women, etc. All that happened was the
expression of opinions that Doug and Co. had the responsibility to
arrange
for the eligibility of women on the UHJ to be recognized.
The evil of Doug and Co. was less any legislative
decision, even the
legislative decision, contrary to Baha'i principle, not to include women
on
the highest Baha'i legislative body, but their intolerance of any other
opinion. By censoring the research and the views of those who thought
otherwise, those nevertheless accepting that women would serve when the
UHJ
so decided, by oppressing those who dared to speak their opinion, Doug and
Co. exposed the identity of the evil of their actions.
Clinton and the US Congress may hold a vast range of
views and their
is a great scope of legislation based on quite a variety of opinions that
they or others in their positions (or any positions, especially the
positions of administrative religious leadership) may hold, and little or
|