|
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Heart of the Baha'i Faith Discussion Group Announces
Formation
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:12 PM
Greetings, Susan.
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> But then it has been a long time since ethics has entered into the
way Prof.
> Cole does anything involving Baha'i history.
Hmmm. It seems to me that the concept of ethics suggested here has to
do
with what appeals to the politicos running things these days in Baha'i. I
think the word as normally understood is much closer to Prof. Cole than it
is to the guys whose modus operandi involves exclusivist fundamentalist
opposition to the essential principles of the religion they rule.
To the Essential Baha'i Principles,
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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:20 PM
Greetings, Rick.
Sigh. I'm sure you'll be sad to hear I'm too busy to
devote the
attention to this I'd like to.
For the record, as usual there's a lot here about WHO
rather than WHAT.
Everything to do with who is irrelevant ad hominem. Stick to the issues
man.
That's what you're so powerless to do, since your whole position is at
odds
with rational discourse -- you hold that WHO is all that counts. Doug and
his buddies, because of who they are, can define ethics and the good. So,
you carry this over into all discourse, you comment about who, rather
than what.
Formal logic, in complete agreement with the principles
of Baha'i
consultation, holds that who said it is of no consequence; what is said
is the whole point. The issue is what counts.
I look forward to you addressing issues, but I don't
hold my breath.
To the Essential Baha'i
Principles,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in
message
> news:3AC40611.995016AD@ameritel.net...
>> Could be a guy from somewhere else who gets thanked for his legal
> expertise in
>> helping put together a book on wildlife laws which is available
at the U
> of New
>> Mexico web site:
>> http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/acknow.html
>
> Not necessarily _legal_ expertise. One "Yorgos D.
Marinakis" is also the
> author of a couple of papers on biochemistry and the environment.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 1:21 PM
Greetings, Susan, Nima and all.
This is ad hominem.
The point I think being made is that the people running
Baha'i,
including the current lot on the UHJ, are corrupt because this former
leading Canadian NSA member was doing hanky panky and his buddies took
care of him by placing him in a position of trust. Lovers of the ad
hominem leap to defend him and people can debate whether he was really
at fault (they didn't lock him up) or innocent (but, he agreed not to
practise his profession in British Columbia, or is it Canada, or is it
anywhere any more).
To me this is ad hominem and beside the significant
issue.
I've said before that Hooper and his buddies can have
as many
mistresses as they please (though I'd advise them to have consentual sex)
and that doesn't bother me at all. It's a non-issue.
The issue is that the founder of the Baha'i Faith
envisaged an open
minded, universalist movement, administered according to certain essential
principles and the guys running the show have mutilated that vision by
operating according to traditional divisive partisan politics &
religious
fundamentalism (abhorrent to Baha'u'llah) and they expect to be followed
unthinkingly no matter how extensively they mutilate the Baha'i vision.
It is not which individuals are dividing the believers,
declaring
people not to be Baha'is, discriminating against women, opposing the
freedom of thought and expression, etc., etc. It is the platform of
fundamentalism, the abuse of authority to mutilate Baha'u'llah's position
on the freedom of thought and expression and his views on the equality of
women, etc. which is the issue.
The issue is that Baha'i is a universalist movement
that promotes
the diversity of human understandings, that firmly accepts the equality
of sexes, that is inclusive, liberal (in the beneficial meaning of the
word), etc. When the issues are discussed, instead of whether Hossayn
Danesh did or did not grope his female patients, then it becomes a bit
clearer what's involved here. At some point Baha'i authority is going to
return to Baha'u'llah's abhorrence of fundamentalism, partisan politics,
disunity and start living the life he envisaged, guiding according to
his principles, rather that the old hat of outworn dictatorial domination,
imposed dogmas, etc. etc.
Let's realize what the issue really is and not
play the personality
game.
M
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>
>>So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever
again?
>
> The "deal" had nothing to do with the civil case which was
dismissed with
> extreme prejudice.
> But he gave up his license to practive medicine before this came to
court
> because he had already retired and was on his way to Europe at the
time. He
> thought doing this would quiet things down without bringing any
embarassment
> on the Faith. Obviously he was wrong, and my understanding that
the NSA and
> the House were none too pleased that he handled things as he
did.
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:29 PM
Greetings, Rick.
Only ad hominems here, except an allegation without
further detail
that the complaint is flawed. How is it flawed.
If you really were concerned with truth and with
issues, you'd admit
women are equal to men, that the Baha'i vision is inclusive, tolerant,
open-minded, universalist, world-embracing, harmonizing. The issues
transcend personalities. Mismanagement has divided the religion. Political
attitudes and fundamentalism have mutilated it from the vision of its
founder. The issue is to live the life: that is, to demonstrate the
essential principles in action.
Show us you can do more than speak about personalities.
Admit here
your belief in what makes Baha'i worthwhile, instead of standing as a
political backer supporting the faction in power and the individuals
heading it. Forget who and say what. The truth is that any true backer
of current leadership would clearly uphold the principles leaders need
to elevate as standards for those guided. Well, your move. Can you speak
any language, but ad hominem?
M
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9a54kp$1sr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Again, as expected, you are not dealing
with issues, but irrelevant
>> personalities. Who is logically irrelevant; what is the issue.
>
> Again, as expected, you take me to task for engaging in a discussion
of
> personalities when you're absolutely silent when it comes to Mr.
Hazini's
> attacks on people in this forum. Try using a more even hand
about this.
> And, by the way, I have not argued that the complaint is flawed
because the
> attorney is incompetent. That, of course, would actually be an
ad-hominem
> argument. Rather, I have argued that the attorney appears to be
incompetent
> because the complaint is seriously flawed. So, the only real
question is
> how you've managed to fail to notice that Nima has yet to address the
> _issue_ of the rather obvious flaws in the complaint?
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:21 AM
Greetings, Rick.
Uhm, well, what's stopping the Universal House of
Justice from
stepping in and resolving differences here? I suppose considering the
past performance of the guys currently in power when it comes to doing
this, we might be grateful they've not intervened in the case.
However, at some time there could come actions by the
UHJ that are
in accordance with the title and job description, including resolving
differences -- really resolving them that is. This is antipodal from
seeking to impose one authoritarian dogma and declaring the rainbow of
valid personal opinions to be invalid, except for the opinion of the
faction in power, and everyone else to have the freedom to remain silent
or to have their say outside the entity Hooper, Doug and their buddies
control.
So, if there are differences, and, if their job is to
resolve such
differences, what are they waiting for? Do they need an invitation from
the disagreeing parties? Every dawn brings a new day during which those
in charge of Baha'i have another opportunity to be true Baha'i guides
for a species quite some distance from harmony.
Here's to the day the UHJ begins functioning as what it
was meant
to be, and what humanity can benefit from.
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
>
> If that's the case, then why does the complaint fail to mention any
effort
> to bring these issues to the attention of the Universal House of
Justice?
> Wouldn't it be equally reasonable to suspect that the complaint was
filed in
> a New Mexico court because the plaintiff doesn't recognize the
authority of
> the Universal House of Justice to settle matters which have caused
> differences among the members of the Baha'i 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: Re: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:19 AM
Hi, Rick.
Then challenge him to a duel if you wish.
My point is that what you say is not validated by who
you are. And,
it is not only my point. It is a principle of formal logic and it is a
principle of Baha'i consultation. Talking about persons, pretty much
all I see from you, is irrelevant to issues.
The main issue is that Baha'i is open-minded, tolerant,
favouring
the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and
expression, the realization that the jewel of spiritual truth is
perceived in a rainbow of varying perceptions, according to the
divinely endowed diversity of humanity, the equality of women and
men, the harmony of faith and reason.
It's a great game to focus discussion on who you are
and your
character, etc., but that is irrelevant to the issue.
Thrive,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9aak0a$dk9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> What Rick said or what Dermod said is not
validated because of who
>> said it.
>
> Except when Mr. Ryder makes a remark that's intended to disparage my
> character. In which case you reply by saying that this is an
important
> issue. The double standard strikes again.
>
>> It is the principles that
>> are the issue, not which individuals order them to be
disregarded, nor
>> which individuals disregard them.
>
> Then kindly explain why you happen to notice when some individuals
> supposedly disregard those principles and fail to notice when other
> individuals blatantly disregard them.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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: BIGS Bunch
Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:25 AM
Greetings, Charles.
Actually, since the issue is that Baha'i is freedom of
thought and
expression and the independent investigation of truth, and freedom of
association with people of a variety of valid views, etc. I suggest you
let
the non-Baha'is in all these other NGs receiving Fred's posts handle
any
problem with crossposts to them. Otherwise, it might appear that Baha'is
were deeply concerned with the suppression of thought and expression and
preventing other people from reading Fred's opinions, etc.
Thrive,
M.
Charles (lmno@mindspring.com) writes:
> Thanks for your responses...
> I am a "BIGS" by the narrowest of margins, and in some ways
I can relate clearly
> to the situation of good ol' Fred, but his method of spamming and kil-filing
> irks the snot outta me. Most people see through the
cross-posting, but I still
> think it quite rude to impose these arguments on multiple
newsgroups. Fred has
> been hurt by all this, and is spreading that hurt willy-nilly to a
lot of people
> that do not deserve it or need it.
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:08 AM
Hi, Rick.
Why not try the Michael McKenny approach. I delight in
flames and
ad hominems. I respond these indicate that the flamer obviously considers
my position, my thoughts, my points irrefutable. Rick, rather than
thinking, in error, that I've the time to read everything posted here
and
take everyone to task for ad hominems, why not yourself respond to those
maligning your character by saying, well I see my points are irrefutable
as
Nima, etc. you are not addressing these issues I've been making.
Only problem with that seems to be that I'm still able
to ask you
what are your points, other than personalities?
Let's see you demonstrate that Baha'i is independent
investigation
of truth, freedom of thought and expression, harmony of faith and reason,
acceptance of the valid variety of personal opinions, the equality of
women and men, individual responsibility for ethical action, the
abhorrence
of dictatorial, closed-minded, intolerant, exclusivist fundamentalism.
Then,
address every comment about you or other individuals by saying such
remarks
are invalid logically and according to the principles of Baha'i
consultation
and merely demonstrate the irrefutability of these Baha'i principles.
Well, now that you're doing that, I can get back
to my other duties.
I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing.
Good Luck,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9acbk9$5hp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> My point is that what you say is not
validated by who you are.
>
> Which still fails to answer the question as to why you notice when
some
> people do this in relatively subtle ways (if at all), but fail to
notice
> when people do it so blatantly as to astound the senses.
>
> You're exhibiting prejuice, Michael. Your efforts to make this
point have
> been carried out in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Friday, April 06, 2001 5:55 AM
Greetings, Rick.
Uhm, no, not at all.
The point is that ad hominems are irrelevant. The
absence of relevant
text is what has been indicated, the non-existence of substance.
The issue is that Baha'i is freedom of thought and
expression. The
freedom of thought and expression is antipodal from culpable behaviour
for which individuals may be expelled from Baha'i. Sharing one's views
on issues is not behaviour, although people have been expelled from the
Baha'i Faith because they were posting their opinions, in favour of the
essential Baha'i principles, to e-mail lists. This is a very serious
issue. That issues are avoided and personalities alone addressed is very
noteworthy.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for this
distinction to be
underlined. Again, freedom of thought and expression, the posting of
personal opinions to e-mail lists and to newsgroups is Baha'i; the very
serious issue of using political power to define those posting opinions
one doesn't share as misbehaving so culpably that membership is denied
is non-Baha'i.
To Baha'i,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> I'm afraid you've failed to notice that this is precisely what I've
been
> doing in my recent responses to your messages. You see, rather
than
> focussing on discussing the issues I've raised, you've focussed on my
> behavior. By your own definition, that's ad-hominem. And,
by your own
> argument, you now understand the implications of your repeated, and
very
> one-sided, attempts at discussing my behavior.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:43 PM
Greetings, Susan.
Baha'i Faith is independent investigation of truth,
freedom of thought
and expression, acceptance of the valid rainbow of personal
understandings,
tolerance, freedom of association with individuals of varying viewpoints,
harmony of reason and of faith, personal responsibility for ethical
action,
equality of women and men, etc.
Just maybe this was a reason for the preference of the
word "Faith" in
the description of this entity. Too many entities referred to by the word
religion had been about interfering in personal beliefs, in the imposition
of a dogmatic structure by authoritarian leadership happy to tell the
childish followers what must be believed. Baha'i Faith is the attaining of
humanity to maturity, the abolition of clergymen telling flocks what to
think. Authorities interfering in the personal opinions of others,
seeking
to prevent independent investigation of truth, to oppose the freedom of
thought and expression, to thwart the harmony of faith and reason, to
refuse the equality of women and men, separating, dividing and
splintering
the fellowship of believers indeed show behaviour, but it is not Baha'i
Faith's behaviour.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>Sharing one's views
>>on issues is not behaviour,
>
> Says who? Religion is all about believes.
--
"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: common ground
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:40 AM
Greetings, Susan.
This is a fascinating position. You seem to argue that
the UHJ judges
individuals on the basis of the motives of these individuals and that the
individuals themselves do not know what their own motives are.
This justification of inappropriate behaviour by
authority is a Most
Great Unacceptability for any decent society.
And with that this green Druid slips back into the
verdant woods.
To Life,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>
> Yeah, it mostly has to do with motive which is sometimes not all that
easy to
> discern.
>
> Well, since Karin has removed herself from the Baha'i community she
really
> isn't subject to Baha'i standards of conduct anyhow, so I don't know
that it
> much matters. As for Karin's motives, I'm not sure she knows what
they are.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
>
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:56 AM
Greetings, Rick.
No. I see there's a complete lack of understanding as
to what I've
been communicating. I'm not in the least complaining about the ad hominems
and personalities you've been posting. I said and I meant it that I
delight
in ad hominems. They are indication of absence of substance; they are
testimony of irrefutable nature of points made in favour of Baha'i Faith
as great promoter of worthy principles, including independent
investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression and harmony of
faith and reason.
What I am doing so delightfully is exposing imperial
nudity of those
who have presented Baha'i as censorship, dictated unreasonable
thought,
male supremecy, etc. Numerous the haystacks piled by such of remarks
about personalities. Emperor's naked body is indicated. Complaint on my
part is non-existent. Mandate of heaven not likely to rest on so
very
unclothed a form.
Further, I don't kill file anyone. I am all in favour
of freedom of
thought and expression. In all the sectors of cyberspace I've ventured I
have travelled without kill file technology. As I said from the beginning
to those on Baha'i lists very concerned to restrict freedom of speech, I
don't have time to read everything I'd like to read, so I certainly am not
forced to read what I don't like. Posts arrive with titles and with the
indication of authorship, so one can select according to interest, known
history of posters and I am aware of the number of minutes available, etc.
Kill filing is not necessary, and since it exists, then interference with
freedom of thought and expression is not required. Those so strenuously
seeking such limitation on Baha'i lists, and going on about it here seem
much more concerned to prevent other people from reading thoughts varying
from one single orthodox dogma, than with their personal relationship to
words so unnecessarily perused.
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9ak7an$act$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> The point is that ad hominems are
irrelevant. The absence of relevant
>> text is what has been indicated, the non-existence of substance.
>
> Yes. Which is why there is no substance to your repeated, and
extremely
> one-sided (do you have Fred in a kill file?) plaints.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:55 PM
Greetings, Rick.
Nope.
An issue is valid or invalid according to the
substantial reasoning.
The shining of the sun at noon is something happening or not, regardless
of any characteristic of humans observing or not said occurrence. The
vast hayfields of comments about individuals: Nima lives in Australia;
Rick lives in America; Well, Nima used to live in America ad nauseum
are beside the point.
The Baha'i Faith is freedom of thought and expression,
harmony of
faith and reason, independent investigation of truth, association of
people with rainbow of various valid views. Attempted justification of
remarks about individual is denied. That Nima claims to have witnessed
a moon orbiting Earth neither proves nor disproves existence of moon.
All comments on Nima's failing or excellent eyesight, his honesty and
his dearth of reliability are unconnected to actual existence of such
a natural satellite.
It is the same for vast majority of issues. Assertions
about the
credentials of Nima or Rick (whether made by you or by anyone else)
are unconnected with the reality of issues. And, I am equal in the
assertion of this basic point of logic and of Baha'i consultation. An
idea is mentioned and is recognized by all, including the one voicing
it, as an entity apart from any individual. All comments about people,
the colour of their eyes, the quantity of books in their basement, the
amount of snow on their back lawn are so much hay, non-metallic in
content, needle free.
Please feel free to point out, with my blessing, any
remarks made
about you by anyone among gardens of posts unread by me as haystacks
devoid of thread bearing potential, able to adorn issues with novel
wardrobe of emperor. And, I will continue delightfully to indicate
nudity of posts by those opposing essential Baha'i principles of the
independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and expression,
the harmony of faith and reason, the association of unlikeminded people,
the vaidity of a rainbow of valid personal understandings, the equality
of women and men.
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> Actually, Michael, where the credibility of the witness is concerned,
> pointing out past instances where the witness' testimony proved to be
> entirely false is about as "competent, relevant and
material" as one can
> get.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9ak7g7$ald$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Ad hominem; no substance.
>>
>> Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>> >>
>> >>> You really are selective. Nima has confirmed
the essentials of the
> type
>> >>of
>> >>> behaviour in this particular community
>> >
>> > A great source!
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:14 PM
Greetings, Susan.
The point where essential logic meets essential Baha'i
consultation
includes everyone. All comments about Susan Maneck are equally unconnected
with issues as are such remarks about anyone. The issue is of interest;
personalities are irrelevant. The issue is valid or invalid; the LSA of
Albuquerque and the USA NSA and the UHJ clearly perform their duties or
fall short of the standard in measureable ways, regardless of anyone so
testifying with or without anyone's expert or inexpert advice. The facts
of the case are independent of successful or unsuccessful legal case or
even of existence or non-existence of any legal case.
The independent investigation of truth, the freedom of
thought and
expression, the harmony of faith and reason, the association of a vast
variety of valid personal opinions, the equality of women and men are
essential aspects of Baha'i. The opposition by any individuals wearing
any titles is irrelevant to that point. The recognition of that point
may assist individuals in positions of Baha'i authority on how to act
and this clear knowledge may assist individuals ordered to obey rules
to discern Baha'i from non-Baha'i commands. Such awareness by everyone
also facilitates more elevated behaviour by those conscious that
dictating compliance with any order soever is hallmark of tyrannical
non-Baha'i regimes. Baha'is have adult personal responsibility for
ethical behaviour.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>Comment
>>about lawyer, whether s/he exists or not, is comment about
personality
>>and not issue.
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> I am *not* making a comment about *any* lawyer. The term
"competent" came from
> Dermod's post not mine. I was simply repeating the phrase. As Rick,
has pointed
> out this is once more a good example of your lack of even-handedness.
I was
> merely pointing out that the person in question had apparently not
consulted
> with *anyone* before making his decision, including a lawyer.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:47 AM
Greetings, Dermod.
Baha'i is freedom of thought and expression. Any
declaration of heresy
is non-Baha'i. Personalities are irrelevant. The identity of the entity
making this declaration does not render non-Baha'i declarations Baha'i.
The identity of individuals and their titles does not fundamentalize and
medievalize the Baha'i Faith. Fundamentalism and medievalism are not
characteristics of Baha'i. Understanding that Baha'i includes variety of
valid opinions and excludes intolerance, authoritarian dictated dogma and
heretical proclamations may assist those calling themselves by Baha'i
titles to pass legislation in accordance with the characteristics of the
Baha'i Faith. It may also assist those claiming to members of the Baha'i
Faith to understand that personal responsibility for ethical behaviour is
Baha'i and thoughtless obedience of dictated non-Baha'i decrees, while
imposed on oppressed masses in despicable systems, is not the action of
mature humans. Human maturity of the body of the believers will assist
those in authority to abstain from absolute abuse of absolute power.
To Baha'i,
Michael
"Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
> Have you any authority for that? In any case is it not the
proper way to
> caution a potential heretic of his/her "misunderstandings"
and endeavour to
> correct them PRIOR to taking any administrative action?
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:32 AM
Greetings, Susan.
The Baha'i Faith is the freedom of thought and
expression. The
declaration by any individual(s) that one is expelled from the Baha'i
Faith because of Internet postings is contrary to Baha'i.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> There were no witnesses against Alison. So far as I know actions
taken against
> her were entirely on the basis of her internet postings, all of
which are a
> matter of public record.
--
"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: Validity of membership in the Faith
Date: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:33 PM
Greetings, Roger.
This is irrelevant ad hominem, personalitity stuff
devoid of issue.
Baha'i is independent investigation of truth, freedom
of thought and
expression, association of a rainbow of valid diverse personal opinions,
harmony of faith and reason, abhorrence of dictatorial oppression,
personal
responsibility for ethical action, equality of women and men, etc.
The assertion by anyone, whatever titles may be
associated with that
person's signature, whatever quotations may be appended to this focus on
personality, that someone is not a Baha'i has no connection with the
qualities and attributes of Baha'i membership. The Baha'i Faith is not a
political party, not even the political party in a totalitarian state,
operating according to the whim of individuals and imposed ideologies, by
means of the literal text of constitutions penned by leadership. It is a
moral, ethical and spiritual essence.
It has been stated correctly on this newsgroup that
Abdu'l-Baha as
well would have had his name removed the rolls, were he alive today and
expressing his point of view. This is a point of personality that may
communicate more to you than the pure spirit of Baha'i consultation and
of formal logic that issues are valid and personalities are not. Why in
the world would anyone take the trouble to bother with whether or not a
poster here has his name registered in Chicago, unless it's an attempt to
assess this individuals posts on his identity, instead of on the value of
the words posted?
Why in the world go to the trouble of removing names
from membership
rolls when people continue, as Baha'is doing what the Perfect Exemplar
did and His Father before Him, to freely express personal opinions,
even
in the context of dictatorial leadership, unless it was misguided effort
to address not the issues, opinions and ideas expressed, but instead the
totally invalid personality of who is expressing such ideas?
Removing the names of those most articulate in
portraying the Baha'i
Faith as independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and
expression, harmony of faith and reason, amicable association of the
rainbow of valid personal opinions, the equality of women and men,
individual responsibility for ethical action, abhorrence of dictatorial
imposition of orthodox dogma, etc. does not transmute the identity of
the Baha'i Faith, nor the qualities and attributes of those pressured
into resigning or decreed to no longer belong. The identity of Baha'i
Faith and its qualities and attributes are shining testimony very much
unconnected with personalities.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Roger Reini (roger@rreini.com) writes:
> ...
> In the US, Baha'is are issued numbered membership cards when they
> enroll in the Faith. On the back of those cards, there are
these
> ...
> For those who are interested in the mechanics. I made a request
to
> membership services at national. I provided them with [believer
X's]
> name and
> Baha'i ID# (made public by [believer x] on his website). At
first
> they said
> ...
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:45 PM
Greetings, Rick.
I understand the awesome difficulty it is for those who
are unable
to argue on the issue against freedom of speech, independent investigation
of truth, harmony of faith and reason, association of a valid rainbow of
personal understandings, the equality of women and men to say anything
about
the issues themselves. Nothing at all seems to be available, no words, no
text, no letters, no sentences, paragraphs, arguments, reasoning --
nothing but personality which is irrelevant.
Rick, you seem unable to grasp the point, or powerless
to post any
words even if you do grasp the point, that even had this article
been
about Michael McKenny, even had I been the one who had made some deal
promising not to practise medicine or psychiatry in Canada again, that
fact would be absolutely unconnected with the essential nature of the
Baha'i Faith as something embodying independent investigation of truth,
freedom of thought and expression, harmony of reason and faith,
association of a rainbow of valid personal opinions, equality of women and
men etc.
Powerless to address the issues, the totality of the
utterance of
those supporting the opposite of the essence of Baha'i is ad hominem, is
to attempt (invalidly according to both Baha'i principles and the
principles of formal logic) to speak about the individuals making the
points. It is why you are so sensitive to such articles about the
personality of Hossayn Danesh, because it addresses you at your own
irrelevant level, but the only level to which you attribute any weight.
Why did you not respond when I pointed out your article
had
substantial value? Why not post that and promote a discussion on issues
instead of personalities?
Again, whether I operate brothels, am indeed the agent
of the Oikoumene
on Terra, am a six year old hologram generated by the computers in Haifa
or
anything else having to do with me is irrelevant to the validity of the
issues I address and which remain undiscussed by you, let alone refuted.
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9attmd$9c7$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> It's my constant request that anything,
including your paper, that
>> is brought up here with a web address etc
>
> No, Michael, you're not sliding out of this one with that kind of
line.
You
--
"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: Pat Kohli and the invlaid election fo UHJ and a Defense of
the Guardianship
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:07 PM
Greetings, Nima.
Many thanks for your comments.
From my perspective, a lot of people on this newsgroup
have the
disadvantage of having been indoctrinated that there are some really evil
people out there (I know one quite valid understanding of Baha'i teaching
is that evil has no existence and there are no evil people, nevertheless
...) who have taken an egotistical and divisive spin on the Will and
Testament.
Shedding such cult think and examining issues with
one's own eyes
and not through the eyes of others, allows the fact to be acknowledged
that the Baha'i Faith is not a solid monolith, despite assertions of
having gone through so many years with its unity maintained. Only cult
think definitions that define anyone who has accepted another Guardian
as non-Baha'i permit this incorrect statement to be passed on in the
indoctrination of new believers.
Moving further, one acknowledges that not only are
there other sects
of Baha'is besides the one acknowledging the power, if not the wisdom, of
the men in Haifa, but these valid associations of believers have grounds
for their existence. I do not find it a very beneficial exercise here or
elsewhere to seek to demonstrate the invalidity of existing groups of
spiritual individuals.
It is valid to present the issue that your opinion is
that a Guardian
must know Arabic and Persian (possibly English as well, if Shoghi
Effendi's
writings must also be considered by his successors), but that is one view;
other quite valid viewpoints exist, including the one that interpretation
as expected of the Guardian is not a literalist duty, which may be given
to any translator, but a spiritual responsibility, to guide the body of
the
believers according to the spirit of the revelation and the needs of the
present time.
My point is not to assert a single authoritative
understanding, but
rather to say that all who have been influenced by the revelation of
Baha'u'llah are worthy of respect and the recognition that they have
valid views. Associations of believers are valid and to be encouraged
both to live the life, according to their understandings, and to see in
others with differing opinions fellow humans, even fellow believers.
Actually, as I've said before here, one quite
energizing potential
of the existence of such a forum as this is that it permits those of
all persuasions and opinions to associate and even to explore modalities
for harmonious organizational agreement. I am fully aware that the men
in Haifa are so fundamentalist they are expelling people from their own
organization. This does not mean that the possibilities of the Internet
do not exist, only that the opportunities have not yet been utilized by
those who could demonstrate their ability to unite themselves as an
example to the greater world.
Thanks again for your comment. Your point is valid, as
is the view
that one need not know certain languages to be a Baha'i spiritual leader.
To All Baha'is and Others,
M
"Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> Boy, this issue keeps coming up with Remeyites year after year, and
they
> still come back with the same weak retorts.
>
> Answer this, then. An authoritative interpretor (mubayin) such as a
Guardian
> must elucidate (tabyin) upon texts. This is what the primary function
of the
> Guardian is. If you knew Persian and Arabic and could read the
W&T in the
> original languages this truism would be self-evident to you without
> demonstration. A Guardain who does not know Persian and Arabic cannot
> authoritatively elucidate upon texts he has no access to whatsoever,
so
> therefore the chief primary function of that Guardian as mubayin is
> inoperative throughout his/her ministry, making the very existence of
that
> office superfluous and totally unnecessary. It's as simple as that
I'm
> afraid. Remey, who was not even an Aghsan, did not read a word of
Persian
> and Arabic. Neither does Joel Marangella. Therefore, Remey was not a
> legitimate wali amru'llah, nor Marangella for that matter.
>
> Besides I happen to believe Shoghi Effendi could've and would've done
much
> better than some upperclass, snob American socialite upstart to
succeed him
> in his office. Ruhi Afnan, for starters.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
>
> <multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ae5326d.3848345@news.aros.net...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:47:57 +1000, "Nima Hazini"
> <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>><multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ae4b39c.3511230@news.aros.net...
>>> I certainly do not find that one of the spiritual or
otherwise
>>qualifications of the Guardin
>>>to be appointed is that he speaks Arabic and Persian.
Which paragraph
>>>of the Will and Testament is that in?
>>
>>What languages was the W&T originally written in?? There's
your answer.
>
> So Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha could not interpret the New Testament
> and Old Testament since they were written in Hebrew and Koine Greek!
> What an argument.
>
> Since there were translations made by others in Arabic, Baha'u'llah
> quotes an Arabic translation in the Iqan, those translations no doubt
> had the biasis of the translators in it, inlcuding those int he New
> and Old quoted by Abdul-baha, he should not interpret, unless of
> course what we have been maintaining is true which is there is no
> language requirement for Guardianship or Abdul-baha's postion either
> since not knowing the language did not stop Him or His Father from
> interpreting.
>
>
>>cheers,
>>Nima
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
"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: I have nothing to do with the election of the UHJ (was:
something else)
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:29 AM
Hi, Pat.
Well, here's a defense of medieval shunning.
Incredible. The
point I've made before is that shunning is an admission that one is very
insecure, that one has failed to imbibe the spirit of the Baha'i Faith
which is the harmonious association of the rainbow of human beings,
whatever their colour, language, class, beliefs, etc. The practise is
indefensible and like censorship is designed to defend inept leaders
by means of keeping followers from realizing that those with other
leaders and other understandings are decent human beings who may well
be capable of articulately expressing themselves on views such inept
leaders don't wish their followers to encounter. Little demonstrates
the incapacity and insecurity of leadership more than an insistence
followers avoid exposure to alternative views. Little demonstrates the
remoteness of individuals from that open-minded maturity promoted by the
Central Figures of the Baha'i Faith than blind obedience to decrees of
such insecure leaders that individuals, spiritual associations and ideas
be shunned and censored.
To Harmony,
M.
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
>
>> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
wrote in message
>> news:9c73p0$7ar$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>
>> Amen Michael - I don't think the Orthodox or other groups have a
good
>> interpreation on the Guardianship but I fully acknowledge their
right to
>> believe what they do. The policy of shunning them is
abhorrent in the
>> extreme - we need tolerance and respect not blind hatred.
>>
>> As ever,
>>
>> Dermod.
>
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Personally, I find shunning much better than relaying nasty dreams,
or claiming
> that 'Abdu'l Baha wrote bad things about Baha'is, etc. and so
on. Shunning
> shows more toleration than blind hatred. When I read the
"GUESS WHO SAID THIS
> ABOUT BAHA'IS" message I thought to myself, this was an utterly
marvelous world
> where MrMahdi might have brought in a friend who can read 'Abdu'l
Baha, spell
> "Baha'i" and insult us, rather than just read the
propaganda, tell us it is
> "bahai" and all quite thoroughly refuted. If MrMahdi
shunned us, his blind
> hatred wouldn't be so visible, would it?
>
> My mother used to say that when you have nothing nice to say, say
nothing.
> Shunning is an extension of this.
>
--
"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: Pat Kohli and the invlaid election fo UHJ and a Defense of
the Guardianship
Date: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:07 PM
Hi, Nima.
The comparison here was of a recognized spiritual
authority speaking
to those seeking to limit his authority. By the way, I don't think you're
a Tibetan Buddhist. Do you accept the subjective validity of the authority
of the Dalai Lama and his followers, regardless of your personal
understanding of reincarnation, or do you deem him and those who consider
him a spiritual leader all wrong? If you grant validity to those
Buddhists,
similarily you may be able to understand the validity of those who accept
living guardians, even if you're not among the number who do.
I hope this clarifies the issue. Ah yes, Juan is an ad
hominem here.
He is an individual. The issue is that those recognized as guardian may
Interpret (elucidate, guide, explain, etc.) without literally translating.
For Juan or anyone else to come here and say, "The literal
interpretation
of the word and the historical context of Ali and the Imams of Islam is
that the Guardian should literally translate," would be an indication
that
on this point his and their opinion was literalist. I have already said
that
such an opinion is subjectively valid; it is just not exclusively so. He
would no more invalidate living guardians and their followers than his
expression that reincarnation is not taught in Baha'i would invalidate the
Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism or any other religious leaders and faiths
that understand reincarnation to exist, even, by the way, were there
Baha'i guardians and their followers believing Shoghi Effendi was alive
and guiding the religion in a new incarnation.
By the way, Nima, why did you snip the example I provided
where one
invested with the authority could authoritatively rule, without knowing
Hebrew, Greek or Latin that a Biblical passage stating "Thou shalt
not
permit a witch to live" does not state, "Thou shalt not permit
Wiccans to
live", but, "The penalty for death by poison is death" or
even rule that
actually the death penalty is historical, not current? Whether one
owes
authority to genetic heritage, to reincarnation or to any other cause, one
in authority may issue rulings on such issues without personal knowledge
of
the original languages of the text.
Personally, I think history demonstrates that the
attitude that the
text must be followed literally has been calamitous for humanity. I feel
you do see the value of non-literal understandings in places. I hope you
will agree that it would be much better to live under an Interpreter who
knew not a word of the language and guided according to the principles
of the Baha'i Faith than one who was expertly fluent in languages and
ruled as a medieval, fundamentalist, literalist theocrat. The criticism
of current administrators in the organization centred in Haifa is not
that one may not find a way of literally extracting their medieval
policies out of the ocean of words of Baha'i text, but that such literal
extraction is done at the expense of those principles that elevated the
Baha'i Faith above the medieval mindset. One aspect of this medieval
mindset is the refusal to entertain the possibility other people holding
non-literal understandings have valid understandings.
To A Better Future,
Michael
"Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
>
> Bad comparison and irrevelant. The function of a Dalai Lama is much,
much
> different than a Guardian. I think the problem here is a fundamental
> misunderstanding of the role of a Guardian by Remeyite and Haifan
Baha'is
> alike. The Guardian is a not a divine being, not a Manifestation, not
a
> prophet, not a seer, not the incarnation of a Buddhist deity, or what
have
> you. He is a temporal - not divine - guardian/caretaker of the
religion, and
> there are certain foundational qualifications for that office without
which
> the utility of the office becomes questionable. Remey did not possess
a
> single one of those qualifications, and neither does Marangella, nor
Jacques
> Shoghomonian, Pepe Remey, Rex King, etc., for that matter.
>
> Irrelevant. A Dalai Lama is not a Guardian.
>
> If it's according to the understanding of texts he has no way of
> understanding, then the apparent limitations of that Guardian's
abilities
> once again raises questions of functional utility not to mention
legitimacy.
> Besides if that Guardian is *only* interpreting translated texts, why
even
> have a Guardian when others can equally do the
elucidating/interpreting for
> themselves??
>
> Nonesense.
>
> Another hypothetical "what if" scenario which is not
grounded in reality.
> This is worse than the Dalai Lama example. One could also conjecture
wildly
> that maybe Shoghi Effendi did write a Will and Testatement which was
> suppressed by certain Hands including Remey, the contents of which
appointed
> a lessor known but competent female of his kin to succeed him as
Guardian,
> Head of the Faith and member for life of the UHJ. It would make for
one heck
> of a great suspense mystery novel, and maybe I should just it, but so
what?
>
> Michael, put some of these arguments you're making past people who
know what
> they're talking about and know the texts backwards and forwards and
see how
> far you get. Try Juan for starters. You still don't understand the
dynamics
> of the questions involved and are drawing analogies that are for the
most
> part completely irrelevant and non sequitor. Again, a Guardian who
does not
> possess the requisite knowledge of Persian and Arabic cannot be an
> *authoritative interpretor*. If he cannot authoritatively interpret,
then he
> vacates his fundamental duty as Guardian, therefore his guardianship
is
> illegitimate - period, full stop. Please don't give me this silly
"The Holy
> Spirit will guide correctly an illiterate guardian" argument. It
is
> nonesense.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
>
--
"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: Morals of a Mole
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:32 PM
Top o' the Mornin' to You, Dermod.
You make me almost regret being so busy I'm not even
reading everything
posted here. But, it's great to hear your Irish voice. Keep it up, if
you've
the time and inclination. Personally, I tend to think that all talk about
personalities is irrelevant; however, since this is generally the whole of
fundamentalist discourse (trying to discredit those not fundamentalist
instead of addressing the issues and trying to say because of who the
fundamentalists are, therefore their fundamentalism, according to that
ad hominem, is exclusively valid), perhaps you're right to score on the
net they stand in front of, rather than the one they leave empty.
Anyway, as I learned that old folksong as a child in
the Ottawa Valley
the lines went:
"That's why women are worse than men
They can go down to Hell and come back
again."
And, not withstanding the concept of humour in previous
generations,
women are fully eligible to serve on the UHJ, and all that's lacking is
the will of the patriarchate to live in the present, instead of the Dark
Ages.
Slan,
Michael
"Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
>
> "So it's true that the women are worse than the men,
> For they went down to Hell and were threw out again."
>
> Traditional Irish Words and Air
--
"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: Pat Kohli and the invlaid election fo UHJ and a Defense of
the Guardianship
Date: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:36 AM
Hi, Pat.
Continuing revelation is completely in accord with the
concept of
revealed religion. There are possibilities for semantic arguments, e.g.
that in Baha'i, or one or more of its sects, the leader interprets and
does not reveal, or elecidates and does not interpret. Such semantics
have no overall significance, however important they may be decreed
internally. Thus, separate sects can have different official positions
and different individuals within the sects will have a variety of
perceptions, however intense the pressure by dictatorial leaders to
quash personal opinions or at least the expression of such.
Speaking specifically to the case of Baha'i, my
personal opinion is
that one of the most important aspects of the Revelation by the original
Revealer (Baha'u'llah) was to provide a modern alternative to
fundamentalist Islam and to fundamentalism in general. Accordingly, the
transformation of his movement into a fundamentalist one opposed to the
essential principles he enunciated is inconsistent with this specific
revealed religion. Historically, revealed religions often seem to have
come into the hands of leaders whose insecurity and domineering natures,
etc., have prompted them to rely on fundamentalist techniques and to
impose a fundamentalist idealogy.
While I consider the current oppression by the men in
Haifa of the
Baha'i principles: the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of
thought and expression, the harmony of faith and reason, the equality of
women and men, the harmonious association of a variety of valid opinions
and of the various peoples on the planet, etc., to be inconsistent with
the paradigm of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, indeed to be what he sought
to eliminate, I recognize the existence of these men and understand that
they, through decree, have asserted a single selective and literal
interpretation of the ocean of Baha'u'llah's writings. It is completely
in keeping with the fundamentalist (as opposed to the Baha'i) paradigm
for those issuing such decrees to say that really they are not decreeing
anything, not interpreting anything, merely elucidating the obvious
literal interpretation of weighted passages of text. QED.
They exist and their effect on the movement launched by
Baha'u'llah
may be observed. The original universal, harmonizing, open-minded,
individual-enhancing, tolerant, liberal intent of Baha'u'llah may be
outlined and, sooner or later, the fundamentalist excesses may be shed.
To the Future,
Michael
In an abstract sense, above the specifics of any faith, the
"Guardian of the
Faith" might be a continuing revelator and thus not depend on reading
the
revelation. I don't think that that fits too well in the paradigm of
a revealed
religion.
Is it possible that a Guardian of the Faith who is continuously
receiving
revelation might seem inconsistent with a revealed religion, to you?
Is there any notion which might be inconsistent w/ certain
religious
paradigms, as you understand various types of religions?
Slan!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net
--
"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: My fears about the Albuquerque Baha'i community
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:56 AM
Greetings, Roger.
You have not demonstrated that you are arguing with
validity. You
are arguing against persons because of who they are. This is invalid
according to formal logic and according to the principles of Baha'i
consultation which hold that issues alone are valid. Present issues,
but do not say (outside of a cult) that one is wrong because one does
not accept the cult leaderrship's position. You may defend the cult
leadership's position as cogently, rationally, articulately as you wish.
However, the cult leadership's position is not correct simply because
the leadership says it is, nor is someone else wrong simply because that
one disagrees with leadership. If leadership's view is so dazzlingly
correct tell us why; if one disagreeing with leadership is so blatantly
wrong show us on the issue. If you say this person is wrong on the
grounds he disagrees with the cult leaders you are, in my opinion,
testifying that you are powerless to refute his statements.
As I said on news.groups during the discussion about
establishing TRB,
if the response by the US president to claims by someone that he was the
lawful King of the USA was to publically inform the American people that
there was someone asserting to be King of America, and for the good of
the country no one should read anything this guy had to say and his
supporters should be denied access to public media, then logically we'd
have to deduce that, By Zeus, there must really be something to this guy's
claims; gosh and golly gee, we'd always thought the US was a republic and
no possible legitimacy existed for anyone to claim to be a US king, but
the president's response shows there must be something to it. Similarily,
the response by official Baha'i leadership undermines their own position
and indicates there's something to the points being made by those they
don't want read.
Again, you may refute to your utmost capacity any
points made, but
don't argue against people on the grounds of who they are or you are
confessing the superiority of their positions and your impotence to
show them wrong.
To Tolerance,
Michael
Roger Reini (roger@rreini.com) writes:
> On 2 May 2001 18:55:30 GMT, bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
> McKenny) wrote:
>
>>Ad hominem and hence invalid. Issues, points, content is valid.
What is
>>said is valid. Who said it is invalid.
>
> Not in this case. A Covenant breaker or a supporter of a CB
would be
> expected to engage in attacks on the legitimacy of the Administrative
> Order in general and, in this day, the Universal House of Justice in
> particular. This would be to gain support for their position --
their
> rebellion, as it were.
>
> And here we had someone attacking the House of Justice, someone who
> had expressed sympathy for the views and positions of Mason Remey,
who
> falsely claimed the Guardianship for himself. That sets off
warning
> alerts for me.
>
>>
>>Roger Reini (roger@rreini.com) writes:
>>>
>>> I tend to discount that person's opinion in this case because
of other
>>> opinions he has stated in this newsgroup -- opinions that,
IMHO, are
>>> in support of individuals who have broken the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah.
>>> I am NOT calling him a Covenant breaker, for I have no
knowledge of
>>> his status in the Baha'i Faith. Still, if he is indeed
a CB or a
>>> supporter of CB's, then I discount any statement of his on
the supreme
>>> Baha'i institution and its legitimacy.
>
> Roger (roger@rreini.com)
> http://www.rreini.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: Albuquerque - some corroboration
Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 9:46 AM
Hi, Rick.
Well, gee, I'm not even a Baha'i. Why should I go and
dig this stuff
out of the basement, when there's so much not getting down, while I even
take the time to type this. If you want to attack the Baha'i Faith and
say this is definitely not an outfit where one can submit a letter, a
request, an appeal, a communication and expect any response (other than
having it tossed in the waste paper basket) well, let the Baha'is defend
their religion against you, or will it be Nima who gives you your quotes?
I continue to assert that nothing anyone else says
about the Baha'i
Faith can cause as much harm, is such an attack, as what is signed by
Doug and his buddies and those claiming to be in the same party.
I don't promise never to post such quotes. I'm just
astonished that
people such as you act as if you're defending Baha'i when you challenge
assertions that it is decent. You reply to remarks in favour of Baha'i
with, "No, that aint so, prove it, by citing," (literally I
assume) "the
appropriate quotes." I expect if I don't find "Thou shalt not
trash the
appeals sent to thee unanswered," you'll say, "See we are
allowed to
respond to appeals by trashing them unanswered." And this is
defending
the Faith?
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9d14h0$smh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Of course, Baha'i texts allow for people
contacting Baha'i authorities
>> to receive a timely response -- response being defined as an
answer, a
>> reply, a communication from the authority to the person initially
>> contacting them.
>
> So, cite the actual texts, Michael. Better yet, quote them, and
explain
> precisely how those texts apply to these circumstances. Such
would be a
> vast improvement over the constant stream of uninformed personal
opinion
> that plagues these newsgroups.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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: Handling Appeals (was Re: bahai - Re: Unconstitutional (per
UHJ Constitution) NSA By-law)
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:13 PM
Yes, Rick, they acted by tossing the appeal in the wastepaper basket.
An
individual addressing a decent authority, especially in this manner, is
entitled to more than the unspoked assurance that whatever action, if any,
is deemed appropriate by the authority will be taken. The individual is
entitled to a real reply informing her/him what action has been taken.
Actually, in decent contexts this would be published in the press.
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
> news:9euse9$1bfl6$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Yorgos" <nthyorgos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OE44pGOjXZ1tazAfM0n000072cb@hotmail.com...
>> Thank you for confirming the length of time that elapsed between
the time
>> that Deborah filed her Complaint with the NSA and the emission of
a reply.
>> As you well know yet more months followed before the Complaint
was filed
> in
>> Court. Mr Schaut seemed to think I was making this story
up. I wonder
> what
>> further comments he now has to make!
>
> Actually, Mr. Ryder's memory is somewhat faulty. I have pointed
out that we
> only know that Ms. Buchhorn is unaware of any action taken by the
National
> Spiritual Assembly in these matters. Mr. Ryder's conclusion is
that that
> National Spiritual Assembly "sat on" (to use Mr. Ryder's
words) the appeals
> raised by Ms. Buchhorn--a conclusion that would imply that the
National
> Spiritual Assembly never took any action to investigate the matters
raised.
> All I've pointed out is that we don't know whether or not the
National
> Spiritual Assembly took no action whatsoever. We only know that
they have
> not replied directly to Ms. Buchhorn's appeals.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"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: MacEoin Review of Crooked/Straight, Part Two
Date: Sunday, June 17, 2001 8:23 AM
Greetings, Denis and Nima.
Many thanks for this post. I see that this second part
of the review
contains some of the specific objections I mentioned as lacking in the
first one. This, in my opinion, still does not excuse the other objections
I raised about the first half (complaining about the size, number of
footnotes, length of bibliography and presence of Latin and also about the
lack of scholarly credentials of the book's authors!!!).
I note the objection to the use of secondary source
material,
including GOD PASSES BY which itself contains no footnotes, and this is a
valid objection. If Baha'u'llah himself is not to be taken as a primary
historical source for events to which he was not an eye witness, that is,
if Baha'u'llah's historical assertions concerning such things as Greek
philosophers are not to be accepted as literal fact, then Shoghi Effendi,
whom Baha'is do not regard as a Manifestation of God, cannot be treated as
a hollow reed transmitting God's inerrant historical knowledge. The normal
standards are to be applied in his case, and it is indeed a failing of the
book being reviewed (notwithstanding its length, number of footnotes,
size of bibliography and seasoning of Latin quotes) if indeed it accords
any priority to Shoghi Effendi over actual primary source material.
Denis, as strenuously as I can, I absolutely disagree
with your
assertion that one should not be writing on a subject, if one does not
know about the existence of certain material. This is flawed reasoning
and a favouring of censorship repugnant to me. Let whosoever wishes write
and let whichsoever publisher desires publish what is written. And, by the
same token, then, may you or anyone else who has a point of view, an
awareness of facts unstated (through ignorance or deliberate
misrepresentation) be equally free to write and to be published. Let
knowledge thus be advanced not be telling others to be silent if they
haven't read everything you have read or if they don't share your opinion
and mine as to the primacy of primary sources (thus, removing GOD PASSES
By from any cultish pedestal), but rather through the freedom of authors
both to write what they wish and to encounter corrections and opinions at
variance to their own.
I would like to comment on your specific point that it
is
reprehensible for Baha'u'llah to have conspired to have another
substituted for him for reasons of safety. I fully appreciate your point
of view, and one of the essential Baha'i principles is the freedom to
express one's opinion and the willingness to listen to the rainbow of
personal opinions held by the diverse individuals comprising humanity.
This point is not so uniformly believed as you suggest. Many rulers in
past times employed tasters whose task was to die in place of a ruler
being poisoned. I do not say that I necessarily consider this the most
heroic thing to do, only that many people have esteemed the life of the
ruler highly. There is, for example, that story of a Chinese ruler about
to rush to the aid of a woman being threatened by a wild beast, only to
be advised that he could be provided with other women, but what could they
do if their ruler was killed. You don't have to share this opinion of the
value of a ruler's life, or of his acting so as to reduce the possibility
his people will be confronted by his death. My point is that the view
does exist that the ruler's life is so precious, and the official Baha'i
opinion is not so universally condemned as you imply.
I agree, of course, on the issue of democracy over
totalitarianism.
Again, thanks for posting this. In my opinion this
review could have
been better written. Also, if the book is as forbidding to most readers
as the reviewer suggests (in the sense of length, etc.), then such readers
could benefit from the kind of review that summarizes its content in half
a dozen or so pages. This could be written by someone sympathetic with the
authors' point of view, and one hopes also aware of the validity of other
viewpoints.
Thrive,
Michael
Article 46149 of talk.religion.bahai:
[Part 2 of review by Denis MacEoin, Ph.D., of:
Udo Schaefer, Nicola Towfigh, and Ulrich Gollmer (contribs), Making
the
Crooked Straight: A Contribution to Bahá'í Apologetics, trans. from
German
by Dr. Geraldine Schuckelt, 2000, George Ronald, Oxford, 863 pp.]
Not many lines later (p. 485), he writes 'Although, as a Baha'i one
trusts
that the main sequence of events is recorded correctly'. Frankly, being a
Baha'i doesn't come into it, Ulrich. Facts are facts, and pious trusting
has no place in historical analysis. But Gollmer isn't content with
trusting in the texts: he actually believes that the lives of their
authors
make a difference.
Referring to Abd al-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi, he writes: 'The lives of
these two chroniclers testify to this, embodying as they do the ethical
principles of their faith'. I've no doubt Shoghi Effendi was the best of
men (though I know less about him than I do about, oh, let's say, Ann
Frank), but the fact is that, when he wrote God Passes By, he hung his
'facts' on a preconceived framework. Just as I might distort historical
characters or events in writing a novel, so he told his tale in order to
meet the demands of a grand scheme, a divine drama played out in Shiraz,
Baghdad, or Acre. It's a work of genius, but I don't think it's a reliable
historical source, if for no other reason than that there isn't a single
reference from beginning to end. We're meant to take everything on Shoghi
Effendi's say-so. Whereas academic books are open and transparent,
displaying their origins in the form of citations and bibliographies, God
Passes By is wholly opaque, cramming primary and secondary materials in
together without rhyme or reason, and leaving the reader in the dark
throughout. So just what Shoghi Effendi's rather unknown life has to do
with the veracity of his text is quite beyond me.
One particularly lengthy historical section, written by Towfigh, runs
from
page 599 to page 673, and deals, in the main, with the break between Baha'
Allah and Subh-i Azal. I found this a very frustrating sequence to read,
because I sensed throughout that Towfigh was only marginally familiar with
the original texts, but brazened things out by judicious use of secondary
materials, most of them from Baha'i sources. Since this is still a
controversial area, it requires well-honed historical and linguistic
skills, without which it is easy to slip into error, as Towfigh does.
As before, I am aware that the only detailed discussions of Babism in
this
period are to be found in Chris Buck's Symbol and Secret and in two
articles by myself, 'Hierarchy and Authority' and 'Divisions and Authority
Claims', along with Juan Cole's translation of the Risala-yi shathiyya and
some discussion that has emerged from it. Yet, apart from a passing
reference to Buck's work, none of these is brought into Towfigh's
analysis.
In other words, she is choosing which sources to cite, and which to
engage
with (if any), whereas in proper academic discourse a salient book or
paper
demands to be accounted for. In other words, you don't have the freedom to
ignore anything that gets in the way of your argument. Unless, of course,
you don't actually know such materials exist, in which case you should not
be writing on the subject.
Towfigh is constantly out of tune with what seems to have been
happening.
She shows no understanding of the Shi'ite concept of ghayba as an element
in Azal's behaviour (it was certainly referred to by his contemporaries in
explanation of his absence), she persists in accepting 'Mystic Source' as
an adequate translation for the phrase masdar-i amr, (13) she believes
(incorrectly) that there is no document in the Bab's hand which
legitimizes
Azal's position, and she does not know why Azal was chosen as the Bab's
successor (on account of his 'inspired' writings, apparently).
In one place she states that 'the early Babis, too, clearly expected
the
Promised One to arrive soon', which is debatable at the very least. And
she
goes on to say: 'Only this can explain the fact that during the years
immediately following the martyrdom of the Bab so many proclaimed
themselves to be the Promised One.' If she had read the second of my
articles, she would have seen adequate evidence that probably no-one made
that claim at that point, and that all these matters require a much more
sophisticated understanding of events and terminology than Towfigh brings
to them.
Since the range of claims open to the Babis of that period was fairly
large, a researcher in this field ought to be able to access the sort of
texts in which they are laid out. I see no mention at all in Towfigh's
copious footnotes of Naraqi, Dahaji, the Azali compilation Qismati az
alwah, the original texts of Baha' Allah's Baghdad writings, or the
relevant later works of the Bab. The work is being done largely from
secondary texts: God Passes By is cited no fewer than twenty-one times, A
Traveller's Narrative thirty-one, and other articles by Browne thirty-nine
times.
Elsewhere, ideology leads to contradictions. On p. 665, we are assured
that, when Browne was writing, 'a single, united Babi community had long
since ceased to exist', whereas on pages 672-3, we are informed that 'the
term schism is inappropriate in connection with the conflict between Mirza
Yahya Azal and Baha'u'llah, since no division within a religion occurred'.
There are numerous other points that arise from this section, but I'll
restrict myself to just one here, which is an ethical, not an historical
one. On p. 636, Towfigh quotes a statement from 'Abd al-Baha' to the
effect
that the Bab and Baha' Allah agreed to have Subh-i Azal appointed nominal
head of the faith in order to preserve his older brother from danger. She
is not the first Baha'i writer to cite this with approval, and I'm sure
she
will not be the last. Let me only comment here that, if the aim of this
book is to win friends and influence people in the non-Baha'i world, this
citation alone would undermine the whole enterprise. Imagine how
Christians
would react to the suggestion that Jesus conspired to have Judas
substituted for him so he could escape the cross (an idea actually mooted
by some Muslim writers). Or that a French resistance fighter handed a Jew
over to the Gestapo, knowing that doing so would save his life. Or that
John Kennedy, fearing assassination, had placed a double to ride in his
open-top car.
This is something the Baha'is have to think about hard Fortunately,
the
solution is historical rather than ethical. We can't prove there wasn't
some sort of conspiracy, but Azal's appointment does seem genuine, we know
that the Bab gave Azal specific instructions to 'preserve himself', (14)
that he issued instructions to others to take care of Azal, (15) and that
Baha' Allah was in the public eye from quite an early period. (16) What
Abd
al-Baha' was trying to do was to find a plausible explanation for what was
to him an unpalatable fact: that the Bab had appointed as the guardian of
his faith and writings a man considered by Baha'is to be a primary source
of spiritual evil.
That's enough history for the moment. To be honest, the historical
gaffes
and distortions gave me less grief than some early sections in Schaefer's
main contribution, and in parts of Gollmer's section on politics. This
isn't easy to convey, but it matters, so please be patient while I try to
develop this point.
My problem is this. With one important exception, which I shall come
to
later, the tone and content of much of the book seemed to me deeply
conservative and self-righteous. What is worse is that Schaefer clearly
seems to want his voice, with its illiberal overtones, to be taken for the
voice of the Baha'i faith as a whole. To be honest, this doesn't surprise
me, since a rather puritan conservatism was the atmosphere within the
Baha'i movement when I was a member and had much to do with driving me and
others out. What does surprise me is that, after so much worthwhile
debate,
promoted by organs like Dialogue magazine, the liberal voice of Baha'ism
has not convinced men like Schaefer that they are dinosaurs who need to
modify their views in some respects if they are not to cause the Baha'i
faith to petrify in a mode that will become more and more out of touch
with
the reality lived by most thoughtful, caring people.
Let's take a look. After a lengthy section on Baha'i political ideas,
to
which I'll return in a moment, Schaefer really gets going on pp. 301 ff.,
where he discusses 'the concept of liberty'. At first he seems quite
reasonable, arguing, for example, that the liberty of which Baha' Allah
disapproved was not democratic liberty but anarchy, immorality, and so
forth. From there, he works his way round to a popular Baha'i theme,
namely
that true liberty is obedience to God's law. This too, he stresses, does
not contradict democratic liberties.
But this liberal mask starts to slip not much later. Ficicchia, he
says (p.
318), argues against Baha' Allah's legislation 'purely on the basis of the
modernist attitude held by the sceptical and irreligious person who lacks
any concept or understanding of religious obligations and-horribile
dictu-faithful obedience, who rejects any possibility of absolute
authority, accepting no authority but his own self according to the
principle: "I am the Law!"'
There's nothing like a stereotype to waken certain forms of bigotry,
in
this case the notion that non-believers do not understand religious
matters, and that they are anarchists and libertines at heart.
But he goes further. It isn't just non-believers whom we can't trust,
it's
people in general: (17) 'people today value nothing more dearly than their
sovereign liberty in decision-making, their individual right to shape
their
own lives, their freedom to decide for themselves what is and what is not
permissible as defined by their sense of moral autonomy' (p. 320).
In the last century, thousands upon thousands of men and women gave
their
lives to establish just such a freedom, very rightly rejecting the
'absolute authority' of fascism and communism. Many of these were
religious
people of upstanding morals. Others, perhaps the majority, were agnostics
or atheists, also of high moral standards Many of Schaefer's own
countrymen
and women joined the widerstand, the internal opposition to Hitler, just
as
many Russians resisted Stalinism, denying that the authority of the state
is absolute and that individuals have no rights.
Other men and women fought - as many round the world today still fight
-
for human rights, for the right of the individual to believe and speak and
write and act within very broad limits. This sometimes results in speech
or
behaviour that you or I may find offensive. But I - and millions of others
- would always prefer to be offended than to be straitjacketed by a
Hitler,
or a Khomeini, a Pope, or an 'infallible' religious body. If Schaefer sees
(as I think he does) something ignoble in this, what a very blinkered man
he must be.
One of the things that originally attracted me to the Baha'i faith was
its
modernity, its concern with contemporary issues, the belief that it had
passed beyond traditional religions to a new dimension of belief and
action. All I see now, when I look at it, is a religion led by deeply
conservative men and women whose beliefs chime only too well with those of
the conservative wing of all the old faiths. Baha'is have more in common
with haredi than Reform Jews, with the present Pope than liberation
theologians, with Southern Baptists and fundamentalist Muslims than
Unitarians and reformist Shi'a.
Much of this neo-conservatism has its roots in just the same fears
that
prompted Pius IX to declare war on the liberalism of his day. It's a
deep-seated fear of people, a distrust of anyone who dares to think for
himself, to publish a book without having to ask anyone else's approval,
to
stand up in meetings and tell those in charge they are talking nonsense,
to
tell obscene jokes like Lenny Bruce, as a weapon against racism and
sexism.
It's a fear of that young man with his shopping bags standing his
ground in
front of tanks on Tianenmen Square, of the Catholic women who stand up in
church to demand the right to contraception, abortion, and women priests,
of the Muslim women who jeered at the fundamentalists marching in support
of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, of the angry rabbis who dared take
God
to task for allowing the Holocaust to happen, of a writer daring to
satirize a religion that has the temerity to condemn him and others to
death. It's a fear of change, of questions, of the laughter that punctures
the pride of the man on the platform, of satire; a fear of the power of
sex, of the power of words, of the power of people who are willing to make
their own decisions and their own mistakes, people who have eyes that can
see through the Emperor's new clothes.
Schaefer is on the wrong side of history. We atheists and agnostics
out
here are not a gang of depraved, self-interested libertarian anarchist
no-gooders. If you want depravity and self-interest, better look in almost
any religious group around. Religious people have been responsible for an
outrageous amount of suffering in this world, and they still have the gall
to tell us: 'It was bad then, but that was a mistake, just trust us, we've
got it right this time round.' Rationalists believe in the dignity of man,
the value of reason, the worth of ordinary human wisdom, the power of
disobedience to irrational authorities.
Was the Enlightenment a denial or affirmation of the worth of
humanity? Was
science hindered or helped by its separation from religion? (18) Ditto
medicine. Which is the less violent culture, that of largely secular
Europe, or that of the highly religious USA, with its craze for guns, its
murders, drug-related crime, capital punishment, and Star Wars? Is secular
England, where churches are demolished or turned into bingo halls, a worse
place to live than my native Northern Ireland, which has churches on
almost
every street corner? Which developing countries have made the most
progress
economically and socially: the lightly religious nations of Asia, or the
fervently religious countries of the Islamic world? Are practices like
female genital mutilation, honour killings, forced marriages, and the like
more common in religious (mainly, Islamic) countries or in secular states?
I could go on here for pages. In case anyone thinks this has just been
a
digression, may I point out that my reason for going into all this is
simply to draw full attention to an extraordinary refusal on Schaefer's
part to come face to face with arguments like these which contradict his
self-assertive and, frankly, pompous pronouncements on the frivolity and
danger of the non-religious world.
The fact is that Schaefer and pals are writing an extended polemic,
not
just against Ficicchia, but against a host of Baha'i bugbears, from free
speech to balanced academic enquiry.
On pages 209 ff, Schaefer addresses the questions of pre-publication
review, restrictions on free expression, and so on. I don't intend to
pursue the topic here, since a lot could be said on the matter. But I will
comment that the arguments employed by Schaefer reminded me vividly of a
debate that is currently raging in several Asian countries, notably
Singapore and Malaysia, over the role of the press vis-ŕ-vis the
government. Inevitably, the more authoritarian states take much the view
that Schaefer does here, arguing that the state (for which read Schaefer's
religious institutions) must be above all criticism.
In similar vein, Schaefer writes, refuting Ficicchia's claim that
Baha'ism
is anti-democratic, 'On no account is [the Baha'i order]
"anti-democratic",
since the democratic elements, along with the theocratic traits, are
dominant' (p.246). The overall impression (and Schaefer is not alone in
giving it) is that the proposed (and, indeed, the current) Baha'i system
of
government is dominantly democratic. I imagine many of my readers will
concur in this understanding. I, however, beg to differ, as, I think, will
most democrats.
The trouble is that you cannot, in reality, just mix
monarchy/aristocracy,
democracy, and theocracy (with absolute authority). The result is a
denaturing of each of the elements to no useful purpose. We in Britain
have
a monarchy, but the monarch cannot override the will of the peop |