|
Dermod Ryder
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:26 PM
"Brian Walker" <bfwalker@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:fed84403.0107140239.1a15cf7c@posting.google.com...
Hi Brian,
>
> but you are surely not serious? No way can any one or any group be
> scared of our poor little Fred. He is totally forgettable, any
> relevance any of his ideas possibly having now being far outweighed
by
> the crass idiocy of his unutterably cretinous netbehaviour.
Fred's was the first unofficial site I came across on the
Internet. Reading
it was my first confirmation that aberrant behaviour in the AO here was,
in
fact, almost universal in practice - it was not a purely UK
phenomenon. His
site is regarded as negative and essentially evil by the AO as a result.
I'm afraid the AO is not only scared of Fred - it is positively
incontinent
at the thought or prospect of anybody (even me) standing up to it!
It
adopts the position of not alienating anybody who is likely to cause
trouble - lots of threats but only to those who will knuckle under them.
That's why the recent threats to declare certain people CBs are so much
hot
air - more to encourage the faithful than intimidate the
"enemies."
Names were put "on the street" to gauge the reaction if the
AO were to
formally declare a fresh batch of CBs. In light of the reaction I
don't
expect any declarations - the lads know that hell will open up for them,
if
they do it, in quarters where they are trying to establish their
credibility
as good guys. The same fear means that whatever they, you or I think
of
Fred, under no circumstances will they formally notify him of his
expulsion.
I am indeed surprised that they allow this topic to come up as regularly
as
it does - it only serves to emphasise the old lack of intestinal fortitude
that permeates all levels of the AO.
>
> Now you, you big bad foul-reeking Fenian (do I go too far?) are
> another matter altogether.
Give you Orange B******* an inch and you'll try to take a mile - down
the
Garvaghy Road! A useful way of telling people that despite the
differences
between Fenian and Prod in Northern Ireland, there are many of us who are
tolerant and both advocate and practice mutual respect - never mind taking
the piss out of and slagging each other!! One can never go too far
with
that aim in mind!
As ever,
Dermod
>
> All the best,
>
> Brian
>
> PS - just back on net ... lots happening, not all of it good. Cheers
> all!
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:45 PM
"seegar" <calrow@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3b4e60dc.23453769@news-server.optonline.net...
Dear Ceegar,
Irrespective of my opinion of Fred, which is of no relevance
whatsoever, my
position on his standing is clear and concise: -
If he has been expelled, he is the first person who should have been
informed of this fact. If this has not been done, nobody else should
be
receiving information about his standing - full stop, period!
Enjoy that Ceegar!
Dermod.
PS. Personally I still prefer a fag with a mug of black Joe!
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:26:31 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Not until the gomers at Wilmette have the manners, courtesy and
intestinal
> >fortitude to tell Fred that they have expelled him. Talk
about the
essence
> >of sensitivity and confidentiality. The world and his son
can write to
the
> >gomers and get information about Fred's membership status, yet
Fred has
been
> >told nothing officially.
> >
> >Sounds exactly like the AO and tends to support what I wrote
earlier that
> >these people are incredibly stupid.
>
> Dear Dermod,
>
> You insist and plead with everyone to look at Fred as a pathetic
> victim. OK, let's look at this sterling example of victimhood.
He
> insists that he is a "Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
How does he
> support this postulate of legitimacy. Well, he drones it into our
> skulls over and over that:
>
> >On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 06:26:45 -0400, "BIGS - Bahai In
*Perfectly* Good
Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote:
> >Despite the slander of many fundamentalists among my
> >fellow bahais, I have been a member of the bahai faith since
> >1976. My ID Card may be found on my main bahai page.
>
> Fred conditions his membership based on his Bahai ID Card which he
> posts on his "Main" bahai page. Maybe Fred ought to post on
his
> website the back of the ID card that reads "This card is the
property
> of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United states
> with whom rests final decision as to its validity."
>
> Do you realy believe that Fred believes that the Administrative Order
> wouldn't have any thing to say about his continual maligning of the
> institutions of the Faith if he were still an enrolled Bahai? Do you
> think they might want to consult with him? No, according to Fred the
> "UHJ or it's underlings" etc. never say so much as
"how do you do".
> Do you think Fred is intelligent enough to know that there might be
> something amiss? I think he is, but not enough to know how
foolish he
> makes himself look to the intelligent who can see through his silly
> charade.
>
> Consider his campaign of advertizing and posting the details of
the
> actions taken by the Administrative Order regarding former Bahais on
> his website. His own postings spell out administrative actions
that
> have been taken for behavior. Do you think he reads his own
posts? I
> assume so, however he is either in denial living in a fantasy world
> thinking he is a "Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" or he
is hoping
> that your a sucker waiting to be taken. Dermod, I am sorry, you have
> been taken as a sucker evidenced by your parroting and preaching
> Fred's Dogma. Don't expect us all to be this slow on the
uptake.
>
> >
> >Sorry to upset your day,
>
> Hey Dermond don't be sorry. You haven't upset me a bit. I'm having a
> good day. I have my good days and my bad days. But today I feel good.
> Hope you're having a swell day yourself.
>
> >Ceegar!
> >
> That's "seegar" cause I always like to smoke a Don Diego
with a cup of
> expresso first thing in the morning. Some consider it a filthy
habit
> but I'm a work in progress sinner-hey if George Burns lived to a
> hundred smoking 15 El Productos a day I feel one in the morning won't
> put me in the bone yard anytime soon:)
>
> Peace and Love,
>
> Chris
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Friday, July 20, 2001 3:23 PM
"Roger Reini" <roger@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:lDJYO541sMsqUSmxeU9kiv9xqyuc@4ax.com...
>
> Then there is a difference of opinion between you and the US National
> Center regarding your status in the US Baha'i community. You
believe
> you should still be regarded as a member in good standing. The
US
> National Center and/or the US National Spiritual Assembly disagree,
as
> they removed your name from the rolls 2 years ago.
>
> Given the nature of your posts and communications here over the last
> several years, I am not surprised by National's decision. But
here is
> an opportunity to clear up your status. If you feel that you
were
> unjustly removed from the rolls, then by all means plead your case to
> the National Spiritual Assembly.
There is certainly a "difference of opinion" because it
would appear that
the NSA has told everybody that it has removed Fred from the membership
lists .... everybody that is except Fred!
Far be it from me to suggest that he should have been the first to be
informed of this action - after all, I do appreciate that this is the NSA
we
are talking about and making a bollix of a situation is its very purpose
in
existence. Now why should Fred plead his case when he has not been
officially told that he has been removed from the lists? Surely if
the NSA
had any honour at all it would summon up the courage to tell him what it
had
done and apologise for the fact that it has told every other person about
its action but not the one directlt affected!
I realise that the concepts of honour, decency and honesty come hard
to any
Bahai institution but they really are going to have to try harder if they
expect to garner any respect from other than the dedicated but small band
of
weary apologists.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BIGS Bunch
Date: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:32 PM
"Charles" <lmno@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3AC8C68E.19FCC2AA@mindspring.com...
> Hello. Those of us in the "BIGS bunch" seem to waste
a lotta time
> here. I have lurked around for the last year or two and see the
same
> things pop up from the disaffected bunch. and i apologize for
using the
> BIGS term....
Why apologise for using a term that everybody recognises?
>
> Have "we" ever tried ignoring this ng? What would
happen if we just did
> not interact anymore, and left "them" to their own accord?
>
> I say "we" in parenthesis because in no way am I a
representative of the
> Blessed Administrative Order, and do not represent them in any shape
or
> fashion.... yet also realize that the mere posting of this will be
> construed as some sort of "going for the juggular" or
"not addressing
> the issue" etc. (Ever time I address the issue, it is
categorically
> ignored by the ones that accuse me of not addressing it!) This recent
> spat on the NM complaint is a case in point. Absolutely zero
progress
> in terms of any "change" from the non-BIGS bunch.
What do you expect? Has it ever occurred to you that there just
might be
some merit in the NM case - that things are not rosy down New Mexico way?
You know until you guys come out into the real world and show some
propensity for rational discourse, nothing is going to change. Until
you
start to realise that your Blessed AO does make mistakes and is not
prepared
to rectify them because it has no reason so to do with unquestionning
adherents like you and yours, the BF is going nowhere fast. Your
Blessed AO
has a lot of explaining to do about things it has done and things it has
not
done. At its core is a concept of free and unfettered consultation.
How can
that be when there is no free communication, when all Bahai publications
are
"reviewed" as to what they can print?
>
> So I wonder if "we" stopped interacting, if this would no
longer be any
> fun for those that fought so hard to get a non-moderated ng?
"Our"
> responses, no matter how well thought out and presented, have no
effect.
Oh! To see a well thought out and presented case from you people -
that
would be good. Or even to see a line of enquiry - something like,
"Does
anybody know WHAT is happening in New Mexico? or "Hell! Have things
got this
bad that we are being taken to Court?" or perhaps and even better
"Has
anybody any ideas how to sort this mess out - is there any way this thing
can be stopped from going to Court?" Nothing like that just an
expectation
that the world will bow down before your half baked arguments and total
astonishment that it doesn't! Have you ever addressed the point of
why it
is that these people have left your Faith that most of them once belonged
to? Have you ever let it dawn upon you that the AO may not be doing
its job
properly, that it might by its petty mindedness be driving out a lot of
people who, if left alone to do their own thing might be an asset to your
Faith?
In this day and age the onus is on you to think for yourself based on
your
own toil in investigating what is truth and what isn't. On the
bottom line
the only argument advanced on this topic by AO apologists has been that
the
BF cannot be sued in a Court of law to make it adhere to its own rules and
the rules imposed by the civil law. It is a specious argument that
will not
convince anybody with but a modicum of knowledge. Now why do you
think it
should impress the disaffected bunch - amongst whom are some of the
greatest
scholars of the BF, discarded and booted out by ignoranmuses? Why
should it
change when not one argument advanced by the AO apologists stands up to
scrutiny?
But you trot away off to a cloud cuckoo land where all is well in the
BF
despite falling membership and periodic financial crises. When
people don't
care they don't pay. And you trot away off to Peter Khan's land
where the
emphasis is on putting marble into Haifa rather than the Light of God into
the hearts and minds of the world. You know the foundations of the
New
World Order have already been built in the world and construction is
moving
along without Bahais being involved or indeed even recognising that it is
happening. The Revelation has moved on and left you to your safe
fora on
the Internet and marble on the mountain.
Enjoy them!
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BIGS Bunch
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:53 AM
"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in
message
news:9abou601rhh@news1.newsguy.com...
> Well, sort of. All of the questions that Mr. Ryder suggests are
a little
> premature at the moment. All we have is the complaint. In
that sense,
> Charles is absolutely right, and, frankly, I don't quite understand
Mr.
> Ryder's chastising some of us for deciding to take a wait and see
attitude
> with respect to what might or might not need to be done in
Albuquerque.
>
> The only issues that can be reasonably discussed, at this point, are
the
> legal issues that would apply to the allegations raised in the
complaint.
> If Mr. Ryder thinks that these issues ought not be discussed, then
one
> wonders why Mr. Ryder has spent so much time participating in that
> discussion.
The legal issues cannot be fruitfully discussed here simply because
nobody
here has the inside track on the issues, evidence and the manoeuvres going
on off centre stage. This is not a Legal forum - it is a Bahai
one. The
issues that could fruitfully be discussed are those arising from this case
that, if applied, would tend towards a better dissemination of the BF and
the actual arrival of entry by troops rather than its forecast imminence -
forecasts started in 1485, I think!
What could also be discussed is not the prospects of either side
winning
this case in the Courts but the underlying situation that has led to this
Complaint being filed. What has gone wrong in this community?
Why? What
action could have been taken to avoid it in the first place? Given
that
such action was not successful, what can be done now to resolve the
situation and what lessons can be learned and applied for the future?
Of course if you just want to deny the legitimacy of the Court's
jurisdiction in this matter and take yourselves off TRB - fine by
me. As
one who would like to see the adminocentric faith implode and self
destruct,
I rejoice in the tactical manoeuvring towards that objectve.
You're all doing a grand job!
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Toppling the Baha'i Faith, or Saving It?
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2001 5:03 AM
"GS Goldberg" <ssgt_goldberg@webtv.net> wrote in
message
news:11383-3AE0E6FD-196@storefull-168.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Is there anyone here actively trying to discredit and ultimately
disband
> the Baha'i faith (other than Mr. Mahdi, I guess)? What exactly
are
> those of you trying to achieve when you attack the Faith, its
teachings
> or its principals? Many Baha'is I know consider
talk.religion.bahai and
> alt.religion.bahai nothing more than slanderous poison. I'd
like to
> know exactly where the contributors to this discussion group are
coming
> from and what is your objective.
I cannot speak for other than myself on this one - not for those I
count as
"liberals" for want of a better definition and certainly not for
those who
appear as "fundamentalists".
You are quite correct in stating that many Bahais regard these fora as
"slanderous poison" and I would guess that few either know in
detail or
comprehend the issues that have been raised here and are/were the subject
of
the discourse. You see a lot of "liberals" believe that
the expulsion of
Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny, without due prior consultation, was
an
act of fascist terrorism. They think that the New Mexico law suit is
long
overdue as the national institutions either ignore or connive in the type
of
alleged corruption that is at its heart. They view the suppression
of
"Dialogue", the mendacious denunciation of "A Modest
Proposal" and the
purging of liberals from the Faith as being contrary to its principles.
They see a Faith that numerically is in decline and therefore not
fulfilling
its mission. They observe Bahais acquiescing in this decline,
unconcerned
about it, perhaps even secretly encouraging it to better further their
ambitions to attain rank within the administrative order.
They see apologists arise not with answers but with cant - those who
say
that such things CANNOT happen within the Faith as they are not SUPPOSED
to
happen within the Faith and nary a one sees or wishes to see the fallacy
inherent in this stance.
And therein lies the rub - a religion at whose core is CONSULTATION
and
investigation of truth performs neither. Bahais don't know and don't
want
to know the liberal argument because they prefer the comfort of ignorance;
the fear that knowledge or acceptance of its veracity will undermine their
faith in the administrative order, whose very word they have been told is
infallible.
But the Faith is not the AO - the AO exists to serve it, not be the
object
thereof. The real Faith doesn't need an AO - it has to do with the
heart
and the actions of the individual. The real Faith is inclusivist,
not
doctrinaire. You can talk in terms of Unity in Diversity and think
that if
you have many racial groups included you have diversity. That is
only and
the easiest form of unity in diversity. The real thing is
reconciling,
accepting and tolerating people of vastly differing belief systems.
How do
you get Jew and Arab to co-exist peacefully in the Middle East, Serb and
Muslim in the Balkans, Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland?
You do
it through a long arduous process of fostering acceptance, mutual respect,
tolerance, mediation and conflict resolution. This involves, inter
alia,
bringing contending parties to the table for consultation on their
differences. You cannot change or undo those differences but you can
lead
people to a lessening of fear, a building of respect and confidence and a
living together, if not in love then at least in peace.
There is no consultation within the BF - it throws the liberals out
and so
they gather here and other places and put their argument, often (and why
not?) in a robust fashion.
I can't say whether it will result in a saving of the BF or not - I
can
however say that if you want to save the BF (and that decision lies with
the
Bahais alone), certain things will have to change - like the attitude
which
expels rather than reconciles. Personally I think it is of little
consequence whether the BF is saved or not - for truth is that the
Revelation lives in the world, belongs to the world (and not the BF) and
is
slowly being worked through.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: I have nothing to do with the election of the UHJ (was:
something else)
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 4:20 AM
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in
message
news:3AE792F3.BB033F6A@ameritel.net...
Hi Pat,
> 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?
Don't feel hatred for Mahdi - feel sorry for him that he is a blind,
nasty,
bigoted eedjit of the first order. But never shun him because, who
knows
but that one day another brain cell may start to function and he will come
to realise that his diatribe of hatred is not good for either his physical
or spiritual well-being. That can only happen if discourse, no
matter how
rancorous, is continued.
I have been the object of semi-official shunning by the AO in this
little
part of the world. It has been initiated by fear - fear that I might
spread
some erroneous teachings to some or all of any BIGS I might come into
contact with. I am flattered that the scions of the AO think that I
know
enough about the BF to be able to render some informed discourse thereon,
which might convert others to my way of thinking. I am impressed
that they
regard "little old me" as a threat to their rigidly imposed
views and
doctrines. I am honoured that some BIGS have told me that I'm not
the
proto-CB they had been warned to expect. But mostly I "is over the
moon"
that such blind hatred is purveyed by the New World Order (sick) - what a
grand reassurance that things ain't going to chance if these loonies ever
get into any position of responsibility.
> My mother used to say that when you have nothing nice to say, say
nothing.
> Shunning is an extension of this.
Shunning is the ultimate act of hatred and an attempt to force one's
POV on
another. You really want to read up about Captain Boycott and the
(later)
Irish War of Independence in which shunning played a pivotal role.
When somebody is told to divorce a spouse because that spouse
has adopted a
different belief system, that is an act of violence against a family and a
perversion of the Unity espoused in the BF. Gathering together, in
Unity, a
load of prats who already agree with each other is dead easy - gathering
in
a unity, people who not only don't agree with each other but are prepared
to
kill to prove the point, is a trifle more difficult. Sorry to
disagree with
your mother but Abdul Baha said that we were to make friends of our
enemies
not just say nothing about them.
As ever,
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Albuquerque - some corroboration
Date: Saturday, April 28, 2001 5:42 AM
"Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in
message
news:3aea8e33.0@news.acay.com.au...
> Pat,
> And how is this corroboration for the lawsuit being currently
exploited by
> wannabee internet lawyers? Are you expecting this to be entered
in this
> court case or is it just for our interest?
> Mark
Elderberry,
Who knows? Wouldn't it be fun if this account were to turn up in
evidence
along with a dozen more like it? That would be some laxative!
Aren't the allegations in the lawsuit corroborated by this account to
greater or lesser extent? The Plaintiff alleged that an individual
referred
to himself as the voice of God and here's another account which says that
the individual referred to himself as the voice of God? Isn't that
corroboration or in Bahaispeak is it just two enemies of the Faith saying
things that BIGS don't like? Duh!
Like I said to Herr Schaut - you gomers would be much better off
putting the
house in order rather than coming here and elsewhere making inane comments
about this case. That it has been filed in Court is indisputable -
what
should worry you is whether or not there are more of them coming down the
line.
Of course if any of you had a working brain between the ears (or
indeed in
any other part of the anatomy) you'd keep quiet here and devote your
efforts
to terrorising anybody else who would have the unmitigated gall to take
the
blessed AO to Court. Or maybe that explains the absence of Herr
Schaut and
his ilk. Duuuuh!
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net>
wrote in message
> news:3AE9FE24.CBD9DB5B@ameritel.net...
> > Allahu Abha!
> >
> > Some weeks back, shortly after this story broke, there was some
interest
> > in getting additional anecdoes about the Albuquerque LSA.
At the time,
> > I didn't see much details, just generalization. Recently,
I did find
> > some details on another forum. I am reposting here,
without the authors
> > expressed written consent - my thinking is that if/when they
find out I
> > did this, they can claim it for themsleves, ignore it, or
complain to
> > the US Navy and get an apology. In the mean time, I'd like
to think
> > that a few questions are answered. I did try to blank out
some personal
> > details to try to maintain some possible anonymity.
> >
> > Blessings!
> > - Pat
> > kohli@ameritel.net
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> >
> > Since Albuquerque has been in the Baha'i headlines lately, allow
me to
> > reminisce a little about some of my own experiences in perhaps
one of
> > the most dysfunctional and loonier local Baha'i communities in
the
> > world.
> >
> > I came to the Albuquerque Baha'i community in 1989 _________ and
it was
> > as a result of my own experiences with the Albuquerque Baha'i
community
> > which began the process of finally turning me off the religion
> > completely. Interestingly it was with those same cast of
characters
> > mentioned in Yorgos Marinakis' complaint that I went through my
own
> > travails.
> >
> > My first encounter with the LSA of Albuqueruque was in early
Spring
> > 1991. I was a spectator in an anti-war rally outside of
Zimmerman
> > library on the campus of UNM (University of New Mexico),
> > _______________, a few days before the beginning of the Gulf
War. To
> > make a long story short, it seems one of the local Baha'is (or
an
> > employee of Channel 41 where Victory works, I never found out
who) had
> > spotted me and another Baha'i there and reported both of us to
Kambiz
> > Victory (the self proclaimed "voice of God" in the
deposition). Within a
> > few days after the rally I recieved a phone call from an
Assembly member
> > informing me in curt fashion that I had participated in a
"partisan
> > political rally" and so therefore was in violation of
Baha'i law. When I
> > met with the LSA, a string of unsubstantiated charges and
accusations
> > were hurled right and left by the LSA about my "political
activities"
> > and how they were damaging to the Faith, etc. No amount of
pleading with
> > them did any good, and one Assembly member even went so far as
to state
> > that he believed that Baha'u'llah himself would
> > support Operation Desert Storm, encouraged the big stick policy
where
> > international affairs were concerned, and as such so should all
Baha'is
> > without exception (regardless of whether they believed in the
justness
> > or injustice of the war and the fight for America's Mid East
petroleum
> > interests). ________________ This passed.
> >
> > A few short months later I had borrowed William Miller's *The
Baha'i
> > Faith: Its History and Teachings* from the library and one of
the
> > Baha'is had found out about it and reported me to the Assembly.
Victory
> > called me shortly thereafter and asked if I might come over to
his house
> > and bring the book with me. The meeting was friendly and
cordial, at the
> > end of which
> > Victory made a personal request that after I was finished with
the book
> > if I could please make photocopies of the pictures of the Bab
and
> > Baha'u'llah for him. About a week later I recieved a highly
inflammatory
> > letter from the LSA among other things accusing me of having
made
> > photocopies of the pictures in the book and distributing them
all over
> > New Mexico, and also expressing alarm at the state of my soul
for
> > reading a book "by a covenant breaker" (note:- Miller
was never a Baha'i
> > in the first place, but a Presbyterian Missionary who spent
something
> > like 30 years in Iran, and who culled some of his sources for
the book
> > from one Jalal Azal, a descendent of Mirza Yahya Nuri Subh Azal).
The
> > Assembly then called and asked to meet with me. The meeting with
the LSA
> > - attended also by _____________ in my defense - was an
inquisition.
> > Among other things, the Assembly demanded I surrender the book
to them
> > immediately. I refused. When I pointed out that it was Mr.
Kambiz
> > Victory who had asked that I make a personal photocopy of the
pictures
> > of Baha'u'llah and the Bab for him, he denied it. The meeting
ended with
> > me sticking to my guns and without any mutually satisfactory
resolution.
> > I returned the book to the library the next day but ordered a
copy of my
> > own from the university bookstore. A week later I recieved
another, even
> > more inflammatory, letter from the LSA threatening me with
future
> > sanctions should I ever behave so disrespectfully towards the
LSA and
> > its demands ever again. I told myself that Kambiz Victory and
the
> > Albuquerque LSA can go lump it, and from thereon I decided to go
> > inactive, only occasionally attending Feast, and that due more
to
> > _________.
> >
> > The next year and a half I mostly sat on the sidelines and
watched. I
> > witnessed an Assembly that became increasingly more
authoritarian and
> > paranoid in its modus operandi. It encouraged believers to spy
on other
> > believers for actual or percieved infringements of Baha'i law,
> > particularly of unmarried couples living together or people who
made the
> > slightest criticism of the Assembly. I constantly heard
malicious
> > backbiting about other believers the Assembly did not like and
had
> > blacklisted - Deborah Buchhorn being one of them - and even
witnessed
> > once when at Feast during the consultation portion when the
chairman of
> > the Assembly ran across the room and forcefully pulled a
microphone out
> > of a believers hand and called an immediate halt to consultation
as the
> > believer was about to criticize one
> > of the LSA's policies.
> >
> > In the late summer of 1992 a close friend of mine and of another
local
> > Baha'i's, due to our friendship and fellowship with her, decided
to
> > become a Baha'i herself. At the time when she declared, I was
not in the
> > United States, since I was ____________________. However, I came
back to
> > find that just as soon as she had declared, she was totally
turned off
> > by the LSA and the Baha'is of Albuquerque. Now this friend owned
a huge
> > two storey house off the campus of UNM with 8 rooms several of
which she
> > rented out for extra income in order to keep up with her
mortgage. There
> > were men and women living in the house - _____________ - but
there was
> > absolutely no hanky-panky whatsoever going on among the people
there
> > __________ were mostly friends and also because most of the
people
> > living there were serious spiritual practioners of one sort or
another.
> > Besides ________________ had Tibetan Buddhists, a Sufi and a
Hindu
> > devotee of Abi Da/Da Free John and her young son. Immediately
after she
> > declared, after being welcomed to the Baha'i community, the LSA
informed
> > her that she was in violation of Baha'i law for cohabitating.
Any and
> > all explanations fell on deaf ears - showing how far in the
gutter the
> > mind of the LSA actually was - so she fell inactive shortly
thereafter
> > and not long after that resigned from the Baha'i faith. She was
badly
> > backbitten by some, a few of the more looney local Baha'is even
claimed
> > she held "wild swingers parties and orgies at her
home." The question is
> > how would they have known unless they themselves had attended
these
> > "wild swingers parties"!
> >
> > The departure of my friend from the Baha'i faith was testimony
to a
> > greater problem in the Albuqueruque Baha'i community, and
obviously of
> > the Baha'i community worldwide, and what I have come to call the
> > "revolving door phenomenon." I remember that at one
point there were
> > something like 400 Baha'is on the rolls in Albuquerque during
election
> > time. Out of that many people, I can honestly say that maybe 30
to 50
> > people (maximum) ever came to Feast or that I had ever saw at
any one
> > time. From a community of 400 people maybe 40 people ever voted
for the
> > LSA each Ridvan. People would just leave as soon as they came
in, and I
> > would sometimes run into people on Campus who would inform me
they had
> > once been Baha'is but had since moved on, yet never bothered to
tell the
> > LSA or the local Baha'is about it. One family, however, I do
remember
> > simply came and donated every single one of their Baha'i books
back to
> > the Albuquerque community. It was there way of saying
"later...see ya
> > wouldn't wanna be ya"!
> >
> > In late 1993, a particularly obnoxious Muslim Iranian student at
UNM,
> > who was once a Revolutionary Guard in Iran (paasdaar) and who
later
> > turned out to have had ties to the Intelligence services of the
> > government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (he would regularly
spy and
> > report on the activities of the Iranian students (non-Baha'i and
Baha'i
> > alike) at the university), without getting into the specific
details,
> > threatened me and another Iranian at the International Center of
the
> > University of New Mexico. This individual had had numerous
complaints
> > made about him by some female international students, two of
whom he had
> > apparently assaulted sexually (he was later deported from the
United
> > States). I went and filed a report with the UNM Police who
charged him
> > and had him temporarily expelled from the university. Because a
series
> > of complaints and a threat had been made on the Campus of the
> > university, the University and the City had enough to try him
for
> > disorderly conduct, so I became the city's witness against this
> > individual. The LSA found out about the situation and demanded
that I
> > drop the case arguing that it would adversely affect the Baha'is
in
> > Iran. When I told them it was not my case to drop and that I was
the
> > City's witness, they would have none of it. I then recieved an
> > accusatory letter from the LSA to that effect, full of bogus
guilt trips
> > and the like, but as usual I discarded their ridiculous advice,
> > especially this one which was making a plea to allow a guilty
man to
> > walk scott free. A few weeks later Mr. Kambiz Victory and I had
a heated
> > telephone conversation, where Victory ordered me to "drop
the case" and
> > follow the LSA's "instructions" or else! When I
informed him that
> > neither he nor the LSA had any jurisdiction in the matter, he
got even
> > more irate, and informed me I had problems with the covenant. I
told him
> > he was out of line to tell me anything to that effect, and,
besides,
> > just who the hell did he think he was. His reponse, as the one
to Ms.
> > Debrah Buchhorn, was "I am God in this city and whatever I
say is His
> > word."
> >
> > There is much, much more one could relate about Albuquerque and
the
> > cultlike reality and atmosphere of the Baha'is and the LSA, but
I'll
> > leave it at that for now.
> >
> >
>
>
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Censorship on SRB
Date: Sunday, April 29, 2001 10:50 AM
<multiman@aros.net> wrote in message
news:3aeb2a39.4524705@news.aros.net...
> I will probably never get posted on that newsgroup being by their
> preverse definition a "CB" but it is interesting to note
that when I
> go to the newsgroups alt.religion.bahai and talk. religin.bahai have
> 10 or 13 new posts in half a day, while in 3 days I came across 2
> whole posts on this moderated group, guess most bahais on it dont
have
> much to say after "I agree".
Sorry guys, you are mistaken - it isn't censorship on SRB.
Actually they
have all either gone AWOL or have fallen asleep or maybe off the cliff in
which case, we ought to call the Coastguard to fish them out of the water.
Mind you that would waken them up!
I think that they have all gone to sleep - after all, sitting at the
control
desk just waiting for posts, with precious few appearing and those that
do,
interminably boring, would send any sane individual off to the land of
nod.
No inference, of any kind whatsoever, however, should be drawn from that
statement as to the sanity or otherwise of anybody on SRB.
Now for the evidence of this assertion - I sent the following post and
haven't heard a word since, not a cheep.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Opening of terraces on mount Carmel, web broadcast?
>
> "Sizwe Cawe" <Cawe@getafix.utr.ac.za> wrote in
message
> news:bo9YYB.A.XWE.hSB56@bounty.bcca.org...
> > Allah'u'Abha
> >
> > The opening of the terraces will be broadcast live on the
internet.
>
> I understand edited highlights are to be shown on The Truman Show on
Irish
> Television.
>
> As ever,
>
> Dermod.
>
It's not as if it is a complicated message or anything like that,
so -
WAKEN UP LADS! AT ONCE!
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Re: From the attorney
Date: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:10 PM
"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in
message
news:9f954g01ko8@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > While being pedantic, you manage to prove my point.
Thank you.
>
> > And what point is that?
>
> It should be obvious.
>
> > > That certainly explains how you've managed to fail to
address the
whole
> > > issue regarding the Lemon test.
>
> > Au contraire
>
> You did, indeed, point out that the statutes under which
organizations
might
> incorporate themselves pass the Lemon test. We aren't talking
about
> statues, however. We're talking about applying the Lemon test
to the
> actions of the court itself.
How do you apply a test regarding the applicability of statutes, to
the
actions of the Court which is charged with applying that test in cases
involving the religious corporations?
> If you think the Lemon test ought not apply to actions of the
court
itself,
> then I suggest you take a look at Serbian Orthodox Diocese.
A matter of doctrine!
>
> I will, again, ask the question you have yet to answer: how might the
court
> determine whether or not any of the alleged acts constitute fraud
without
> interpreting Baha'i Writings?
US Courts do not intervene in cases involving doctrine unless said
doctrines
are contrary to law - e.g. polygamy in the Mormon case. FYI, fraud
is a
criminal act, the proving of which before a Court does not involve Bahai
Writings.
The Declaration of Trust of incorporated assemblies is not a part of
the
Writings. It constitutes a statement of the aims and objects of the
Assembly, the methods it will use to achieve them (which are generally
within the required definitions to secure tax exemption status) and the
rules whereby it will conduct its business. I understand these rules
must
conform to aspects of the Statute law if the Corporation is to be
registered. They become thereby a Covenant between the Assembly, its
members AND the State which grants corporate status and the benefits
derived
therefrom. The State and the members have a legitimate interest in
ensuring
that corporations abide by the terms of the Covenant - for Covenant
Breaking
is indeed a spiritual disease as well as being contrary to the Civil Law,
in
this instance.
It is my understanding, that of the Plaintiff and her Attorney and
probably
many on this list, that this is a civil suit as to the proper
implementation
of civil and not religious law. You seem to think differently - that
First
Amendment protection extends to all aspects of this Assembly's business
and
that it can do as it pleases because the Courts would have to interpret
Bahai law to review any of its actions and are constitutionally barred
from
so doing. Why then did the Court move against the Mormon Church on
the
matter of church doctrine of polygamy? Surely the Mormon Church was
entitled to First Amendment protection on this?
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:38 PM
"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010709222546.11556.00006469@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >If Fred has been expelled
> >how is it that he has not been told of this by the NSA?
>
> And for the umpteenth time Fred was not informed of his removal from
the
rolls
> because he told the Institutions he would consider any attempt to
contact
him
> as a harrassment. So they accomodated his wishes.
Or they are shit scared of him. Seems as good, if not better, an
explanation than this!
Once again we have a lack of due process of any kind other than that
which
appeals to the comfort of the AO. Proves what I've always believed -
kick a
bully in the ass and his shirt tail won't touch in his haste to get away.
So unless Fred stops posting his claim OR the AO has the manners to
tell him
that he is out (which decision he could appeal) we're just going to have
this old favourite crop up again and again. Of course that he might
appeal
such a decision to the House might be a powerful motive not to notify him
that he has been fired ....
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 6:26 PM
"seegar" <calrow@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3b4cdb7e.2200312@news-server.optonline.net...
> Well Fred, looks like it's about time to take down that bogus ID Card
> on your website don't you think?
Not until the gomers at Wilmette have the manners, courtesy and
intestinal
fortitude to tell Fred that they have expelled him. Talk about the
essence
of sensitivity and confidentiality. The world and his son can write
to the
gomers and get information about Fred's membership status, yet Fred has
been
told nothing officially.
Sounds exactly like the AO and tends to support what I wrote earlier
that
these people are incredibly stupid.
Sorry to upset your day, Ceegar!
>
> >On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 06:26:45 -0400, "BIGS - Bahai In
*Perfectly* Good
Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote:
>
> >Despite the slander of many fundamentalists among my
> >fellow bahais, I have been a member of the bahai faith since
> >1976. My ID Card may be found on my main bahai page.
>
>
> >On 11 Jul 2001 11:51:05 -0700, bighappymonkey@yahoo.com (Dave
Fiorito)
wrote:
>
> >>bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote in message
news:<9iho1l$72v$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> >>
> >>> If there is anything in writing stating that Fred has
been
> >>> disenrolled from the Baha'i Faith, let that be
produced...
> >>
> >>Michael - here it is:
> >>
> >>Subject: Status of Fredrick Glaysher
> >>
> >>
> >>To: Mr. David Fiorito
> >>
> >>Dear Baha'i Friend,
> >>
> >>In response to your inquiry about the status of Mr. Fredrick
Glaysher,
> >>the records of the Baha'i National Center reflect that Mr.
Glaysher's
> >>name was removed from the membership rolls in February 1999,
and he is
> >>not considered to be a member of the Baha'i Faith.
> >>
> >>With loving Baha'i greetings,
> >>
> >>****** * *********
> >>For the Office of the Secretary
>
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - After over five years of observing the tactics of
bahai fundamentalists,
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:42 PM
"Patrick Bateman" <aaaaaaaaaa@prodigy.net> wrote in
message
news:oBNp7.40800$jy6.1755982977@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> Funny..however all religions have fundamentalists, and frankly, the
Bahai
> fundamentalist in comparision is quite tame.
My dear Patrick,
How true! Your typical Bahai fundamentalist is quite tame in
comparison to
your extreme Muslim fundamentalist but I have no doubt that, in time, this
balance will be redressed. When they have reached beyond this
current
embryonic stage and attained maturity, your average Bahai fundamentalist
will be every bit as proficient, if not more so, than any fundamentalist
currently in play. After all are not Bahais expected to excel in all
things
especially fundamentalism?
On current trends they should be every bit as nasty to the next
Manifestation as other fundamentalists are to their Manifestation today.
As ever,
Dermod.
>
>
> > 1. Always smear and attack the individual.
>
> 1. Physically smearing and attacking the individual.
>
>
> > 2. Lure into supposed discussion then cut the jugular.
>
> 2. Lures Bahai's into supposed police station for
"questioning", then
> promptly cuts the jugular vein.
>
>
> > 3. Work together to create the perception for non-bahais
> > that the individual is unbalanced, aberrant, etc....
>
> Works together with other Muslims to show Bahai's, or whatever other
> minority religion that they are non-believers and force them to
recant
their
> beliefs.(See revolution)
>
>
> > 4. Change or ignore the subject.
>
> I don't know if I can satirize this statement because there is
nothing
> really that wrong with it.
>
>
> > 5. Shift to the past and argue over who said what, when, where,
> > how, etc....
>
> Shift to the past by growing out hair, creating an oppressed society,
> mocking women and making them useless in society by not allowing them
to
go
> to school, etc. etc. etc.
>
>
>
>
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:03 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0109181342.305d46cc@posting.google.com...
Dave,
> How does any of this constitute
> "hounding" or even come close to an act of terror on the
scale of the
> events of September 11th?
Lived with terrorism this thirty years past, none of which,
fortunately, was
on a scale comparable with the events of 11 September. It was and is
still
terrorism however! It need not involve killing to be terrorism - it
just
has to be the threat of violence or some other measure designed to
terrorise
a individual or society into accepting a circumstance or set of values
that
it would not otherwise accept. Something like threatening a BIGs
with being
declared a Covenant Breaker, with all of the social penalties that
entails,
because he doesn't toe the party line.
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:27 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0109190629.2f671fa1@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9o8jqd$bnmsa$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Something like threatening a BIGs with being declared a Covenant
Breaker,
> > with all of the social penalties that entails, because he
doesn't toe
the
> > party line.
>
>
> Dermod,
>
> Have I ever done that? No. So I'll ask again - how have I
ever
> "terrorized" Fred - or anyone for that matter. Is
there anything -
> even in _that_ post - That was a threat? Hardly. So apart
from
> pointing out the fact that Fred is not, as he claims, a Baha'i in
good
> standing and getting hyper angry at him once (for which I have
> apologized) what have I ever done that constituted
"terrorism"?
Firstly I did not accuse you of threatening to call anybody a
CB. So I
could conclude the tone of your post above is an attempt to intimidate me
into withdrawing what I said. That is a form of terrorism. But
I won't
accuse you of terrorism - just note that control of the temper is a must
for
any form of reasoned discourse. BTW I can understand why many
Americans are
upset this past week - without wishing to seem arrogant, I've been through
this same type of experience on many occasions many years ago. I know it
and
know how to cope with and overcome it. You get on with your normal
life for
that is the greatest spurning you can give the terrorist - the knowledge
that he has not succeeded in terrorising you.
Fred is not the most liked or admired person on TRB - BIGS just don't
like
and really get their knickers in a knot over him. I have to ask why
this
is? It's not because of nastiness - after all nobody tackled me for
telling
Evensong to "fuck off" or giving the same message to Miss Maddy
- it was
actually a toss-up as to which of them would be told to "fuck
off" but
Evensong won because he is obnoxious whilst Maddy is just a buffoon.
But
then everybody knows that Evensong and Maddy are nasty arseholes and
therefore, nobody cares if they are told where to go, by me or anybody
else.
But all of you BIGS really give Fred the "Hate Week"
treatment - these past
few days have seen threats of litigation, something, incidentally of which
I
thought there was general agreement that it was a subject to which
none
would stoop. And then Eureka! I realised why Fred gets the
treatment he
does - his spamming and his website are a threat to the AO, a clear and
present danger, for Fred has painstakingly not only assembled the evidence
of the canker within but he constantly publicises it to the extent that he
really gets up noses and AO noses at that! Worst of all, however is
that
Fred is uncontrollable - he's a true mad dog in your eyes and you don't
know
how to deal with him.
Now BIGS idolise the love bomb technique but never use it on Fred for
he's
immune. He knows the system intimately and he knows how to
counteract with
pithy comments advising you all to pith off!
I basically agree with him that the AO terrorises people - terror is
more
than bombs or kamikaze aircraft. A whispered aside in the right
circumstances can instil terror (like a threat to be made a CB) - most
ethnic cleansing is carried out by a piece of "good" advice to
the effect
that one would be better off NOT living in this neighbourhood, from a
gentleman who is known or assumed to have the "right
connections" to ensure
the advice is heeded. Twenty years ago the AO tried that particular
threatening tactic on with me and were told where they could stick it!
Others can also testify to that including Dennis Rogers whose experiences
were posted on TRB recently. And you guys hate Fred for this, for
his
continued exposing of the sewer that the AO has become. Of course
you all
hate Juan, Alison, Michael, Nima etc as well and for the same reason and
give them the same treatment but somewhat reduced for they don't post as
much as Fred who is just a real pain in the butt for doing what he does so
well!
Fred is an avid counter terrorist and he's good at it as the
whimpering from
the BIGS proves!
As ever,
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: relevant quotes
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 5:17 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0109190605.306997cb@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9o8ele$bbpb4$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> > My dear fellow,
> >
> > Can you learn to differentiate between "stern
criticism" and "attacks"?
>
> Calling Baha'is terrorists and accusing the UHJ of murder is
"stern
> criticism"? I call them attacks.
Actually I think that noting that the AO is not adverse to using
intimidatory tactics (terrorism by a nicer turn of phrase) is not
unjustified. It can also be noted that the AO had "motive"
for terminating
Daniel Jordan in that he was apparently homosexual, a condition that is
anathema to it. Is it the case that making observations to this
effect is
an attack? I don't think so!
>
> > Those who criticise do not necessarily attack.
>
> Karen and Juan critisize - Fred attacks.
In your opinion but perhaps Karen's "criticism" is more
effective than
Fred's "attacks"; on the other hand it may be that one
complements the other
>
> > Criticism is largely justified as a means of having grievances
redressed -
> > attack is an attempt to destroy.
>
> Consultation is the method given by Baha'u'llah as the means to
> address grievances. Criticism was, for the most part,
condemned.
Tell that to Alison! And before you get on your high horse - the
onus of
initiating consultation rests on the institution that decided to expel her
without giving any notice beforehand. It's antics like this that
makes the
AO appear the total little shits they really are!
>
> > If you cannot or choose not to distinguish between them, you'll
> > never be able to distinguish between your friends and your foes!
>
> As long as people silently approve of Fred's actions he will be seen
> as being allied with folks like you, Karen, Juan, et al.
A hell of a sight better than being aligned with Semple, Khan and the
rest
of the vipers together with their toadies and brown nosed devotees.
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: relevant quotes
Date: Friday, September 21, 2001 5:12 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0109200720.1ce9af6b@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9ob5h1$c3drb$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Actually I think that noting that the AO is not adverse to using
> > intimidatory tactics (terrorism by a nicer turn of phrase) is
not
> > unjustified.
>
> Terrorism has a specific political meaning - causing fear in others
> either intentionaly or unintentionaly in not terrorism.
Otherwise
> they would have to arrest Stephen King.
So threatening to have somebody declared a CB is NOT intimidation and
not
terrorism therefore. The essence of terrorism is that it is the use
or
threat of use of violence so as to achieve an objective. The AO
threatens
dissidents with the tag of CB so as to shut them up. That's
terrorism!
> > It can also be noted that the AO had "motive" for
terminating
> > Daniel Jordan in that he was apparently homosexual, a condition
that is
> > anathema to it. Is it the case that making observations to
this effect
is
> > an attack? I don't think so!
>
>
> Sure it is. The homosexuality is not a cause for murder.
There is
> nothing in this world that justifies homocide of any kind - with the
> exception of self defence where your life is being threatened.
So yes
> saying the AO had a motive because Dan Jordan might have been gay is
> an attack. See Nima's comment on that subject.
Saying that the AO had a motive is not an attack - it is a statement
of
fact. If the said person were homosexual and given that that
condition is
sternly condemned within the AO then it has motive for removing the person
from the scene. That is not the same as accusing it of doing so.
I believe the Aqdas justifies homicide by way of capital punishment which
is
hardly self defence.
> > > > Those who criticise do not necessarily attack.
> > >
> > > Karen and Juan critisize - Fred attacks.
> >
> > In your opinion but perhaps Karen's "criticism" is
more effective than
> > Fred's "attacks"; on the other hand it may be that one
complements the
other
>
> My opinion is not the issue. Objectively speaking the pattern
and
> timing of Fred's comments makes them attacks. He crafts his
messages
> in such a way to evoke anger in his audience. Those are
attacks.
On the contrary - Fred's "anger" reflects more of his
concern, sorrow and
frustration at the prevailing conditions and a desire to rectify
them. You,
like the AO, cannot see this because the AO is perfect! I think the
anger
that emerges from the AO is more the result of the correctness of what
Fred
says than anything else - it is the typical anger of the guilty!
>
> > > Consultation is the method given by Baha'u'llah as the
means to
> > > address grievances. Criticism was, for the most part,
condemned.
> >
> > Tell that to Alison! And before you get on your high horse
- the onus
of
> > initiating consultation rests on the institution that decided to
expel
her
> > without giving any notice beforehand. It's antics like
this that makes
the
> > AO appear the total little shits they really are!
>
> It is her responsibility to appeal. The UHJ made their decision
under
> the assurance that Alison had been made aware of their
concerns. Now
> the ball is in her court.
Has the House told you that? Because it has never told Alison.
In Haifa and
the AO the right hand knoweth not what the left hand is doing!
Nothing
unusual in that!
> > > > If you cannot or choose not to distinguish between
them, you'll
> > > > never be able to distinguish between your friends and
your foes!
> > >
> > > As long as people silently approve of Fred's actions he
will be seen
> > > as being allied with folks like you, Karen, Juan, et al.
> >
> > A hell of a sight better than being aligned with Semple, Khan
and the
rest
> > of the vipers together with their toadies and brown nosed
devotees.
>
> I am not aligned with Mr. Kahn or Mr. Semple - I am aligned with the
> Universal House of Justice.
Of which they are members!
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: losin yr bahai cool
Date: Sunday, September 23, 2001 8:51 PM
Poor old Night Shadow can't stand the heat so he's away off with Reini
to
indulge in self congratulatory praise as to how they endured the vacuous
on
TRB and failed to conquer. As to his point that those who are
critical
should suspend that activity and, instead, work to expand the numbers in
the
BF - there's more than enough evidence to show that when good people join
and refuse to go along with the cant, trying instead to effect reform,
they
are ostracised, vilified and cast out as rejects. To further confuse
dear
Chas - been there, done that, got totally pissed off and pissed off as a
result.
As I have always said, the proof of any pudding being in the eating
thereof - if all was well with the AO, millions would be in line to join.
They are not! Does this persuade our fundie friends to even
seriously
consider that there is a need to reform the AO in a bid to make it more
attractive? Their only reaction is to view the bearers of criticism
as
"evil." That's why they are going nowhere fast.
Farewell Night Shadow, farewel Roger - we will miss you! We miss
headaches
too!
"NightShadow" <seals_jay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba9c5b8.77960428@news...
> You know.. I think Charles has the right idea- and I believe I'm
going
> to follow suit. I'm sick and fucking tired of people bitching and
> moaning about things they feel they've been denied. I'm tired of
> coming here and watching people defame, attack, criticise, devalue,
> demoralize, compare, deny, repudiate and distort the Baha'i Faith-
all
> in the name of "justice" or free expression.
>
> Something Abdu'l-Baha said in SAQ (I won't quote it word for word
> because I'm too tired to go searching through the book right now). To
> paraphrase, he spelled out the non-existence of evil. Evil is a
> negative. Good is a positive. If you have good, you've got
> *something*. Evil is a negative, therefore something is *taken away.*
> Fear is the absence of courage, hate is the absence of love,
> impatience is the absence of patience- you get the idea. This a
> physical world, a world of substance, ergo, a world of positivity and
> existence, since to "exist" means to have substance. Evil
is,
> therefore, non-existant.
>
> Since evil takes away, then that means it *absorbs* goodness but
gives
> nothing back. Like the color black simply absorbs light. A black hole
> absorbs *anything*. A vacuum absorbs air. It radiates nothing, puts
> out nothing, produces nothing. People can acknowledge
"evil" and
> inspire within themselves fear, hatred, loathing, doubt,
> uncertainty... negative emotions in general, but "evil"
hasn't acted
> upon them so much as they have acted upon themselves- they have given
> up something within themselves and reduced their moral/spiritual
> fiber. The have lost a part of themselves, but taken in nothing. To
be
> evil is a great loss indeed.
>
> "Evil" people do nothing but destroy and take away, they
suck up and
> sap the life out of everything that is good around them. They abhor
> goodness (much in the same way that nature abhors a vacuum). You can
> not apply justice to people who are evil- it is a pointless effort
> because they will only absorb it and grow stronger as you put more
> into them.
>
> Justice is a goodness, it is the "best beloved of God." To
throw away
> justice on evil is a waste of time and effort- and of God's good
> grace. Justice is not to attack back or kill or destroy. What
happened
> last week was an attrocious thing and it was an incredible example of
> evil. Going after the people who committed or planned those acts,
with
> an intent to destroy them, is not justice- it is vengeance.
>
> Justice, in regards to 9/11/01, would be to rebuild. To be
*positive*.
> To take responsibility for the things the US has done in other
> countries that are less than noble. As much attention as we,
> Americans, focus on New York right now, we should be moving to
rebuild
> the cities we have been bombing and the countries we have been
> attacking for whatever reason- with absolute relentlessness and good
> will. THAT is justice. THAT would be *positive* and productive. THAT
> would be "turning the other cheek."
>
> I have seen many people attacking the Faith, guised in
"informing the
> public" or "seeking answers" or whatever else. I'm
sick of it. Their
> actions are not just- they are lashing out in an effort to harm a
> religious body that, from their perspective, has harmed them. They
> feel that, since the Baha'i Faith's AO isn't being just, they are
> justified in attacking it- two wrongs do not make a right. It is not
> justice they seek; it is revenge, couched in debate and exposure.
>
> If they were truly just then they would do nothing but sing the
> praises of the Baha'i Faith, noting the good things that are within
it
> and drawing as many people to it so that whatever flaws it has can be
> remedied by qualified people. Instead, they scream from the rooftops,
> "No justice can be found in the Baha'i Faith" "The
Baha'is are little
> better than terrorists" "The Baha'i AO lies
constantly" "The Baha'i
> Faith is rife with censorship" "The Baha'i Faith condones
the death of
> so-and-so individual" and much more. I'm fucking sick and tired
of it.
> Many of you people have no intention of doing a whit of good within
or
> TO the Faith- you would rather spend more time bitching about a
> problem than getting off your ass and bringing people into the Faith
> that can help resolve the problems. You would rather pick and poke
and
> prod and split hairs and argue and debate.
>
> If you don't like the Faith so fucking much why don't you get off
your
> ass and help it out? Why don't you get involved with your communities
> and effect change? Why don't you stop whining and support it- flaws
> and all. The flaws will never change as long as people are constantly
> told to stay away from it. If you want it to change, then DO
something
> about it instead of defacing it.
>
> The Baha'i Faith is a thing of beauty. It was created to unify people
> and raise them up to a higher form of spiritual understanding. It was
> not created over night and it will continue to grow- imagine how much
> faster it could grow and develop in all the right directions with you
> helping it instead of damaging it.
>
> I love the Baha'i Faith ardently. I look to it as a constant source
of
> guidance and support. I look to the teachings of the Blessed Beauty
> and weep at the injustices it is enduring at your hands. It does
> nothing, in this world of substance, to harm or molest you while you
> continue to try and destroy it. I see the majority of this newsgroup
> as sick, petulant, arrogant people enjoying nothing more than beating
> up something beautiful that refuses to attack back. Every attack you
> make against the Faith, every time you "expose" another
flaw within
> the body of it, I see another bruise, welt and scar creep across the
> face of this inestimable beauty that is the Baha'i Faith... and it
> makes me want to cry at the cruelty of it.
>
> I'm no longer coming here. I came here in the hopes of answering
> questions that promote the Faith and instead I find myself defending
> it or defending myself. I know my limits and mine are reached with
> this newsgroup.
>
> I have no intention of suing Fred- never did. He'll probably ignore
it
> anyway- so be it. I had hoped my threat to sue for his clear slander
> would give him some perspective on what he's doing to himself and
> others. I pray that he DOES mature soon- as do I pray that all of you
> do, as well as myself. I am not perfect. I am human. I will make
> mistakes and I will harm people- but I will never do so with malice
in
> mind or at heart.
>
> No. Instead, I will simply leave you people alone to whine while you
> attempt to kill the one thing I would gladly die for.
>
> Good-bye.
>
> Allah'u'abha!
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:28 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0109200703.42b05993@posting.google.com...
Dave
>
> I am sorry that you have to live with terrorism day in and day out.
> But with all due respect your analysis of Fred as anti-AO hero is
> about as accurate as the characterisation of bin laden as a hero of
> Islam.
I have lived with terrorism, have known terrorists, read about them
and
tried to understand their psychology and modus operandi.
>
> I do not fear Fred. The AO does not fear Fred. I have
sent seekers
> to his website and they have always come back to me saying that this
> guy has a big chip on his shoulder and is obviously out to smear the
> Baha'is. His website is not a collection of evidence.
Have you ever
> seen the film 12 Angry Men? Fred is like the juror who goes on
a
> racist tirade and all of the other jurors turn away. He no
longer is
> taken seriously because of the obvious bias and spite he shows.
That
> is what Fred's site is all about and folks see right through it.
>
> People get pissed at Fred because he claims to be a Baha'i and them
> procedes to insult the Faith in the most venomous way possible.
First mistake - Fred does not insult the Faith. He is after the
AO like the
rest of the critics. Apart from Miss Maddy, who on this forum
attacks the
essence of the BF? What is criticised and attacked at times is the
excesses
of the AO and the way it seeks to pervert the BF.
I will grant you that Fred's continued spamming can get a bit tedious
but
his Website is a collection of evidence which stands to the total shame of
the AO. Have you ever asked yourself why Fred calls himself a Bahai
yet
conducts warfare against the AO? Why does Juan have the site he
has? Why
has he left the AO and written works critical of it? Why did the AO
spy on
Nima? Why can the AO not include these guys and a lot like them?
It's dead
easy to turn around and explain it away as evil on their part. The
hard bit
is figuring out what the AO did that forced these guys out and motivated
them to offer resistance. That's your problem!
>
> I got angry at hime because the events of September 11th make all
> other acts of terrorism ever perpetrated look like minor events -
> sidebars of history. I do not wish to diminish the effects of
> terrorism in Northern Ireland but what we have just witnessed makes
> the troubles look tame.
In scope - yes but in nature, no! There is no difference between
the WTC
and the car bomb in Omagh other than the number of casualties. Both
were
undertaken by persons consumed with hatred who had utter and callous
disregard for the lives and safety of others. The magnitude of the
WTC was
certainly greater than any other single act of terrorism yet carried out
but
terrorism, whether it leaves one or 6,000 dead, is terrorism. Last
night a
family was terrorised in Northern Ireland - a shotgun was fired at their
house. This is the third night of terror - the first resulted in a
brick
thrown through a window, the second was a pipe bomb and the third has
resulted in one person injured with shotgun pellets in the back of his
head
and shoulder. Today those people know they are "required"
to leave their
home and live elsewhere.
Is there any real difference between this type of terrorism and an
official
of the AO threatening somebody with CB hood because his e-mail messages
are
"covenantly challenging?"
>
> Close to 6000 killed scores more injured and even more traumatized.
> <SNIP>>
> And you and Fred compare all of that to what the Baha'is do?
Come on.
> Leave your hate for Baha'is aside for a moment and look at what
you
> are saying and ask youself if you are thinking any clearer than the
> Islamist school masters in Afghanistan who have taught their students
> that the events of Sept. 11th were a "satanic Jewish conspiracy
to
> turn America against Islam and the Arab brotherhood".
And you ask yourself if fundamentalist Bahai attitudes that would
dearly
love to emiminate dissent and is willing to adopt any necessary steps so
to
do from threatening people with being declared CBs to expelling them, are
any different! For a person who has been many years in the Bahai
community - CB hood is a death sentence. To compell or seek to
compell his
compliance with AO attitudes is therefore an act of terrorism. End
of
story - Dave! If an organisation attempts to further its aims by
intimidating its adherents or others, it is in no different in nature to
the
organisation that bombed the WTC. That's the uncomfortable truth!
BTW the AO is no different than any other religion you care to name -
they
all work or have worked on intimidation and terror throughout the ages.
That's the joy of the secular society - it has put these nascent embryonic
and mature terrorist organisations in their proper place - well away fron
government.
> You and Fred sound like those mullahs.
And you sound like an ABM or a Counsellor! Pot ...Kettle ... Black!
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: What is going on here?
Date: Saturday, September 29, 2001 9:01 PM
"Nima Alavi" <s349269@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in
message
news:9p28ju$4er$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> What is wrong with all you people
> Settle down!
> Remeber this?
> "If religion happends to be the cause of Disunity, Seperation or
Hatred it
> better it not be there at all"
> WHY???? Because the whole purpose of religion is UNITY!!!! So stop
fighting
> with each other!
Who's fighting? All I see is a crowd of AO types, incapable of
acknowledging that their beloved AO is far from perfect, and unable to do
anything to rectify that state of affairs.
Besides which isn't JUSTICE the aim and object and if it is, you will
have
UNITY pursuing it. If you ain't got the UNITY it's because you ain't
got
the JUSTICE but some folks are prepared to fight for that rather than seek
to suppress it in the name of a so-called unity which is not conformity to
mediocrity.
>
> Nima ALAVI
>
>
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: B Questions about the Bahai faith.
Date: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:54 PM
"Roger Reini" <roger@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:3BB5C342.2FAEB2@rreini.com...
> At last, someone who is asking legitimate questions about the Baha'i
> Faith. There haven't been many here lately.
And we all thought you had gone, whereas, in reality, you're a sneaky
bugger
who spouts porky pies about leaving but smarms back again when he thinks
there's an impressionable "seeker" about who can be impressed by
cant.
The man is certainly posing legitimate questions - of the kind you
like.
But what happens if he starts to pose legitimate questions of the kind you
don't like - the sort of things Curious has asked, amongst others?
What
happens if he poses the questions about corruption within the Bahai
Administrative Order that Fred has put, Nima has put, Juan has put?
What
happens if he asks why a law suit was filed in New Mexico after the
National
Assembly had ignored the issues therein for nigh on two years? What
happens
if he asks why Alison and Michael were expelled contrary to all
established
procedures within civilised societies? Shall we witness another
moonlight
flight with accompanying mumble about how these are not legitimate
questions?
>
> BUSHBADEE wrote:
> >
> > I am interested in the Bahai faith.
> >
> > I have a few questions that I would hope some one of that faith
would
answere.
> >
> > I would appreciate if they would email me the answeres to the
address
below.
> >
> > 1 Does the Bahai faith accept the Koran?
>
> Yes, we accept that the Qur'an was revealed by God to Muhammad, that
it
> is the Word of God. We accept the Torah and the Gospel
too. We also
> have our own holy writings, which were revealed by our Founders,
> Baha'u'llah and the Bab, as well as the writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
> Baha'u'llah's eldest son and the Center of His Covenant.
>
> >
> > 2 Why do Muslems seem to have such a special hate for those of
the Bahai
faith.
>
> Prejudice born of ignorance, IMHO. The clerics cannot accept
the notion
> of a new Prophet or Messenger after Muhammad. Baha'u'llah
taught that
> the Day of Judgment was actually the advent of a new Messenger (or
> Manifestation of God, to use the Baha'i term), and that all alive at
> that time would be tested.
>
> >
> > 3What is the relationship between the Bahai faith and Israel.
> > I understand that the Bahai faith is alive and thriving in
Israel.
>
> The Baha'i World Center is located in Israel, that is true.
That is
> because Baha'u'llah, His family and many of His followers were exiled
> there in 1868. At the time, it was a province of the Ottoman
empire.
> So the presence of the Baha'is in the area predates by some 80 years
the
> founding of the State of Israel.
>
> Other than the staff at the World Center in Haifa, there is no Baha'i
> community in Israel. Baha'u'llah ordered the believers not to
teach in
> the Holy Land; His injunction is still obeyed today.
>
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > .
> > .
> > I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
> > To answere me address mail to
> > Bushbadee@aol.com
>
> Posted and e-mailed.
>
> Roger (roger@rreini.com)
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: What is going on here?
Date: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:04 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0110010903.20d95c5d@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9p5ucb$gv1pd$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Who's fighting? All I see is a crowd of AO types,
incapable of
> > acknowledging that their beloved AO is far from perfect, and
unable to
do
> > anything to rectify that state of affairs.
>
> The AO is far from perfect and we are working to make it better.
Without much success - a lot of talk but no action as events in New
Mexico
prove.
>
> > Besides which isn't JUSTICE the aim and object and if it is, you
will
have
> > UNITY pursuing it. If you ain't got the UNITY it's because
you ain't
got
> > the JUSTICE but some folks are prepared to fight for that rather
than
seek
> > to suppress it in the name of a so-called unity which is not
conformity
to
> > mediocrity.
>
> Justice is made manifest in the laws of Baha'u'llah. One of
those
> laws as Nima A. points out is unity and a prohibition against
conflict
> and contention.
Unity is not conformity - unity can encompass differences of opinion
and
their expression. Conformity or rather, the attempt to impose it and
deny
thereby, freedom of expression, inevitably leads to conflict and
contention.
>
> Baha'u'llah gave us a mechanism for conflict resolution -
consultation
> combined with obedience to the guidence of our elected bodies.
>
> So we have Baha'u'llah's laws and we have the mechanism in place for
> resolving our conflicts. I would say that justice therefore
exists
> within the Baha'i community.
You haven't resolved the conflict surrounding Alison - your mechanisms
didn't work and she was thrown out. Now as a non member of the Bahai
community, how can she go back to them for resolution of the
conflict. I
thought all of this consultation was supposed to take place before the
event - I thought if the House or the NSA were going to expel somebody
that
they would actually meet and consult with them, in person and not through
lackeys, before throwing them out.
>
> As for not fighting - many of us here have differing opinions.
That
> is ok. Discussing those opinions is ok. The insults are
not ok. I
> am in coplete agreement on that point.
The so called insults are a part of the exchange - part of the
tradition of
robust debate!
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:56 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0110010814.162fb9e4@posting.google.com...
> "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com>
wrote in message news:<9p79aa$gp743$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "I'm glad you acknowledge the terrorized state of the U.S.
> > Baha'i community. Now, does or does not Haifa endorse the
> > state of affairs and support those responsible for it?"
> > K. Paul Johnson, full text at
> > http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Johnson5.htm
>
> Please define terrorism and show us concrete examples of the
> "terrorized state of the U.S. Baha'i community.
So you do not regard "midnight visits" by officialdom
threatening impending
nomination as a Covenant Breaker, with consequent social ostracisation by
friends and family, as intimidation or terror. You do not include
spying on
individuals, advising that they be spied on and kept away from
"youth" as
similar. Good to have that clarification!
> For other readers please not that neither Fred nor the source he
> quoted are a part of the Baha'i community in the U.S. and their
> ability to observe it is nearly non-existant.
But they once were and report on what they found during that
time. Current
abilty to observe upon the community may be limited in as much as it is
run
as a secret organisation and quasi police state, where informers are
sanctionned in some way.
Dermod.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:29 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0110020624.2fd8ca90@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9pb8fm$hupga$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> Councelors counsel others. Sometimes they may need to tell
someone
> that they are in danger of crossing that line. Baha'u'llah
Himself
> revealed the punishment for breaking the Covenant.
>
> I for one would want to know if I were in danger of crossing that
> line.
And who defines that line in a religion which encorages freedom of
conscience, of thought, of expression - sorry, that was Abdul Baha and
your
AO types don't like him at all? Furthermore fore knowledge of being
on the
brink does not equate with the receipt of a letter, out of the blue,
telling
one that one is out on one's ear for unspecified offences. Let us
also
recollect recent correspondence from the House of Horrors about
"spiritually
corrosive" ex -Bahais, coupled witha bit of kite flying nominating
certain
ex-Bahais for the sanctified title of CB hood. That has, of course,
been
forgotten now - certain people issued very clear advice as to what would
happen if the House dared to attempt to cast its evil acts on anybody
numbered among the elect of ex-Bahais.
>
> In fact if people were declared to be Covenant breakers without being
> warned you would be writing that Baha'is terrorize people by NOT
> telling them they are in danger of being declared to be a Covenant
> breaker.
It all depends on whether or not a consultative process has been
followed
properly. Firstly if charges of heresy are to be laid then they must
be
laid in writing or in such form together with evidence to allow of the
accused presenting his defence or explanation. One does not visit in
the
dead of night laying allegations of covenant breaking nor does one expel
people without first seeking explanation. And no crap about appeal
processes either! When actions precede consultative process it is
apparent
that guilt is determined and cannot be undetermined.
> > You do not include spying on individuals, advising that they
be spied on
and
> > kept away from "youth" as similar. Good to have
that clarification!
>
> Baha'u'llah instructed LSA's to be watchful. We humans took it
the
> wrong way. We made a big deal out of it and did not do it the
best
> way possible. But clearly, categorically, and emphatically it
is not
> terrorism.
So what is it - this spying, this stalking of individuals who are not
Bahais
any more? The Cold War was fought by spies as is the current US
sponsored
operation against bin Laden. When you spy on people who are no
longer
members of your community you infringe their privacy which is an act of
aggression and an act of terror designed to force those people to exercise
themselves in accordance with your wishes.
>
> > > For other readers please not that neither Fred nor the
source he
> > > quoted are a part of the Baha'i community in the U.S. and
their
> > > ability to observe it is nearly non-existant.
> >
> > But they once were and report on what they found during that
time.
Current
> > abilty to observe upon the community may be limited in as much
as it is
run
> > as a secret organisation and quasi police state, where informers
are
> > sanctionned in some way.
>
> No Dermod - they can't observe the community because they choose to
to
> be a part of it. They have opted out. They do not
socialize with
> Baha'is, they do not attend events with Baha'is. They have no
idea
> what the pulse of the community truly is. No one is keeping
them out
> - they are doing that by themselves.
I have direct and indirect contacts deep within the Bahai community
who keep
me well informed as to what is going on. Indeed I have information
about
some events before the community even knows about them. One does not
have
to be a member of an organisation to know a great deal about it -
intelligence gathered from a number of sources, collated and analysed soon
reveals results. And when some of that intelligence comes from areas
close
to the leadership you begin to suss exactly what is going on - even if you
don't reveal all of what you know.
After all the dear lady and Dr. Mork "received" intelligence
from Zuhur -
their mistake was to divulge that fact and totally misinterpret what they
got. Did they really think they were getting sensitive information
from a
list which everybody thereon knew was penetrated by their agent(s).
That
the AO or its proponents indulge in such intelligence gathering is a sign
that they regard themselves as being at war - that people on Zuhur indulge
in "terrorist" attacks on them, justifying their "counter
terrorist"
operations. The similarity between this and US reaction to the WTC
bombing
is marked.
> Your "evidence" of Baha'i "terrorism" is
extremely weak. You have
> stretched the definition of "terrorism" so far that it has
become
> absolutely meaningless. Your examples that support that weak
> definition are even weaker.
With all due respect, Dave, your experience of terrorism is one
horrific
atrocity a fortnight ago. I have lived with it for many years - I
have seen
families intimidated out of their homes with polite and seemingly well
meaning phrases. Sometimes it is unspoken, just a rap on the
door. If the
family doesn't leave - a stone through the window, a pipe bomb against a
door, shotgun blast through a window etc etc until the message gets across
loud and clear without a word being spoken. You don't understand the
subtleties of terror for you have never seen them. Imagine how you
would
feel if you got a letter tomorrow morning telling you that your status as
a
BIGS has been cancelled on orders from Haifa. Of course you don't
deserve
it - you have broken no rules that you know of; you haven't done anything
wrong! Nobody has told you that your behaviour has been
questionned! So go
ahead - imagine it! And now you know or think you know what Alison
felt -
now you see Bahai terror at work!
Did you know, Dave, that people actually phoned my wife, in the
aftermath of
that letter from the House of Horrors, fearing that I was to be one of
those
honoured by the House? That they felt the need to do that is,
whethjer you
like it or not, evidence of fear and terror induced by that letter.
Terror
is subtle - it is a means of forcing compliance and often in a way that is
utterly deniable. Nobody has claimed responsibility for the WTC
bombing
just as here a number of atrocities have not been claimed by one side or
the
other. That deniability is an integral part of the terror process.
> There is no pattern of terrorism in the Baha'i community.
You may
> wish that there were. It would legitimize your rejection of the
> Faith. Unfortunately your characterization of Baha'i
"terrorists" is
> flat out wrong.
Because you fail to perceive it; because you're not on the receiving
end,
doesn't mean that it isn't there. The AO indulges itself in dirty
missions
behind enemy lines. Its victims perceive that as terrorism - an
effort to
subvert them, to force them into line with AO policy.
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:52 AM
"Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
message
news:3bbaaa1c$1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Given that terrorism entails random bombings and massacres such as
are so
> characteristic of IRA and Orangemen and bloodthirsty fanatics - This
claim
> has caused me some confusion. Are you saying that Baha'is are busy
chucking
> bombs and firing on crowds of people, and hijacking planes? If so,
where
are
> the arrests and investigations on these hot leads you have?
Timothy,
You're making the mistake of only seeing terrorism in its most violent
manifestation. For the terrorist the real objective is in the knock
on
effects of the outrage. For example- all of the major bombing
outrages here
have been accompanied by series of bomb scares, designed to cause
disruption
and fear. Another tactic is the random phone call to a store or
factory -
the person who answers the phone is told that the caller represents a
major
paramilitary operation and is "advising" that it is going to
kill all of the
Catholics/Protestants who are employed by that store or factory.
Some
warped people take vicarious delight in such tactics and justify them in
the
name of the "cause" to which they are affiliated. Can you
imagine the
effect such a call has on the recipient - the fear that is generated?
Outrages generate fear - threats of further outrages generate even
more
fear. A number of telephone calls can close a city down for a day
especially in the wake of a major outrage; attacks on the minority
community, whence sprang the terrorists, increase, driving that community
into the hands of the terrorists for "protection."
Compare that to the Bahai community - regular CB/liberal (to the
average
BIGS there is no significant difference - both generate fear and loathing)
contacts being reported generates fear, expulsions justify that fear,
driving the community to "attack" those who threaten it.
To somebody like
me that has lived in a society dominated (at times) by terrorists, the
situation within the Bahai community is so similar that I fail to
understand
why the BIGS cannot see it and rise up against it, for in their hands,
ultimately is the solution. It's a situation that is slowly
destroying the
Bahai community both in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world.
Because
the peoples of the world generally prefer moderation, one
liberal/dissident
Bahai counter-terrorist can do a lot of damage.
The solution is apparent but it is one rejected by the powers that
be. They
think that they can win their war by "military means" - that
they can drive
out and/or subdue the voices of opposition. I can assure them that
this is
not the case. These types of conflict can only be stopped and
resolved by
negotiation and compromise. As there is no sign of this within the
AO
(typical terrorists are extremely dedicated to the "Cause" and
brook no
compromise) the conflict goes on and on and will go on and on.
This is one thing that interests me about the AO and amuses me
immensely.
An integral part of the most progressive religion in the world which
preaches consultation as a means of practising conflict resolution,
asserts
its "authority" to such an extent that it refuses to negotiate
with those it
perceives as enemies. Yet throughout the world the only progress
that is
being made in conflict resolution is when the parties are dragged to the
table and persuaded or forced to negotiate an end to their
differences. The
House of Horrors rejects all such process preferring to attempt terror
tactics to keep the community in line. That succeeds up to a point -
the
point where recruitment staggers and slows then goes into negative growth,
the point where the sinews of war (i.e. finance) starts to dry up, the
point
where its apologists begin to get shell shocked and waver in its defence
as
their inherent contradictions emerge.
The Internet gave a voice to many oppressed BIGS - some paid the price
for
their views by being expelled or otherwise made subject to terror tactics.
But as is always the case in conflict when the reasonable (those who are
most open to compromise and negotiation) are terrorised, they become
marginalised and cast out in favour of the warrior class, whose sole aim
is
destruction. They will not destroy the BF but they will wreak
immense
damage to the extent that it will never achieve its mission objective
because it does not deserve to. Not for nothing were the BIGS warned
that
the real enemies are those within for they are the best trained and armed
-
he who understands best not his own cause but that of his enemy is best
placed to secure victory.
Consider the cost of this conflict, which, like most, is not at all
necessary were the principles of toleration to be practised. The
progressive is always derided - as a result no progressive will ever mouth
his opinions without being aware that he is in for a rough ride. He
knows
and accepts that - as a result he is a tough foe not given to easy
surrender. Oppose him and he will fight back with ten times the
force of
his opponent for he is truly dedicated to what he believes in. The
AO can't
win this one yet, perversely, it can't lose it either so what is at stake
is
the amount of damage that the conflict will cause and the undoubted fact
that the AO is so perverse that it will not seek to resolve matters other
than through violence. Or, to put it another way - you saw the
damage a few
terrorists wrought in N.Y. and Washington - now equate that to the damage
done day and daily to the BF by a mere handful of posters to the Internet
who are merely telling the truth and seeking tolerance rather than
bigotry.
Terrorism never wins, the extremists are buried by history for the
meek do
inherit the earth. In future decades Bahais will look back at this
conflict
and wonder why it was ever fought, for the principles espoused by the
liberals will win through, as they always do and will be enshrined.
The
more perspicacious will damn the current AO for allowing and indulging in
a
conflict that could have been but was not resolved until a time when
massive
damage had been done from which the BF has not recovered.
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: B Questions about the Bahai faith.
Date: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:26 AM
"Matt Menge" <mspmenge@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.0109301736.198508c3@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9p5u0k$g749f$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Roger Reini" <roger@rreini.com> wrote in
message
> > news:3BB5C342.2FAEB2@rreini.com...
> > > At last, someone who is asking legitimate questions about
the Baha'i
> > > Faith. There haven't been many here lately.
> >
> > And we all thought you had gone, whereas, in reality, you're a
sneaky
bugger
> > who spouts porky pies about leaving but smarms back again when
he thinks
> > there's an impressionable "seeker" about who can be
impressed by cant.
> >
>
> So he's indecisive. What's your problem with Roger anyways?
He's a pompous asshole?
>
> > The man is certainly posing legitimate questions - of the kind
you like.
> > But what happens if he starts to pose legitimate questions of
the kind
you
> > don't like - the sort of things Curious has asked, amongst
others? What
> > happens if he poses the questions about corruption within the
Bahai
> > Administrative Order that Fred has put, Nima has put, Juan has
put?
What
> > happens if he asks why a law suit was filed in New Mexico after
the
National
> > Assembly had ignored the issues therein for nigh on two
years? What
happens
> > if he asks why Alison and Michael were expelled contrary to all
established
> > procedures within civilised societies? Shall we witness
another
moonlight
> > flight with accompanying mumble about how these are not
legitimate
> > questions?
>
> Well for one thing this shouldn't effect Bushbadee right away because
> people like Nima, Juan, Allison and Michael were all prominent and
> influential people within the Faith. What are you trying to do,
scare
> him off?
I'm not responsible for other people's decisions. There is
however a
proclivity on the part of BIGS, when a "seeker" is observed on
the Internet,
to divert said seeker from the open forums into "safer" ones,
where he can
be removed from the arguments of the evil ones who oppose the blessed
AO. I
just like eople to be offered the option of seeing this tactic, that if
they
wish to investigate the BF, they can the chance to see the warts as well.
That's why the open fora are invaluable - an opportunity to avoid
brainwashing or love bombing.
>
> Second, these issues have never been ignored. On the contrary they
> have been debated to death. As for myself, I realize that our
> administration is not perfect, but I would hardly call it corrupt.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.
I have a sneaking feeling that Bushbadee is less interested inthe AO
wrangling that in the fact that the BF accepts the Quran in its entirety.
Might there be an undercurrent that they could set aside their own
Writings
in favour of aspects of the Quran just as some fundamentalist Christians
disregard the New Testament in favour of the "blood and guts" of
the Old.
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:58 PM
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:f0853486.0110030746.c915de1@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
news:<9pen5e$ibu17$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>
> > Compare that to the Bahai community - regular CB/liberal (to the
average
> > BIGS there is no significant difference -
>
> Bull. That is flat out wrong. Good to see you have picked
up some of
> the skills of terrorism. Demonize the opposition it makes your
> arguemnt more convincing.
No it is not! That it is pointed out that Alison is NOT a CB is
indicative
of the attitude that that's the way it is - if they're not official CBs
they
ought to be. Geez, Dave, I've been called one myself!
BTW I don't demonise anybody - I call things as I see them!
>
> > It's a situation that is slowly destroying the
> > Bahai community both in its own eyes and in the eyes of the
world.
>
> Bull. Show me clearly that the few events (and few they are)
add up
> to a campaign of terror. Heck most of the Baha'is don't even
know
> about it. How can you terrorize a population if they never even
hear
> about it?
I did not state that the entire Bahai community is terrorised - fact
is,
that individuals who step outside certain boundaries, as defined by the
AO,
mark well, will be subject to terror tactics to induce their falling into
line OR leaving the community. Many Bahais do know about and
determine to
ignore it - like most folks they like their comfortable existence
untroubled
by controversey which might dent their illusions. But the general
overal
morbidity of the Community in terms of numbers indicates that all is not
well. I don't attribute this to the terror tactics but to the
overwhelming
introspecti |