|
From: "John MacLeod" <macleod@beloved.com>
Subject: Re: The text or the Interpretation
Date: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:43 PM
"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010101050614.07479.00014296@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> Dear John,
>
> I'm not saying I couldn't understand what the Writings were saying. I'm
saying
> I was having the same difficulties that Karen is currently having,
namely
> making what is in those texts jive with what I saw (or thought I saw) in
real
> life.
Yeah, but what I mean is that what Baha'u'llah actually wrote re the
Covenant has very little to do with the issues which trouble people.
Certainly it is about obedience to God and most particularly the
Manifestation, the text, and possibly the succession though I can't find
that spelt out. However the idea that authorities can do no wrong or
should never be opposed would be hard to deduce from what Baha'u'llah
Himself wrote about the covenant.
>
> >But when one reads all the
> >stuff that is written about the covenant nowadays I can't make any
sense
> >of a lot of it.
> The result is a certain over-reaction and a tendency to
> >dismiss the Covenant itself as nonsense.
>
>
> Do you really think the stuff that was written three decades ago was any
> better? I challenge you to go back and read it. No, I think we have to
find new
> ways of talking about the Covenant to avoid the extremes we see on both
sides
> today.
Agreed, my 'nowadays' referred to the last 100 years or so. Actually,
outside the confines of these newsgroups and Bahai studies and other
bizarre areas I think the believers are developing quite reasonable
attitudes about the lesser Covenant (if there is such a thing). I see
absolutely no serious challenge to the UHJ as the authority within the
Faith. People seem to accept the UHJ for much the same reasons that they
accept the authority of say the British or French governments etc. There
is a knowledge that there is some history involved, and some of it may be
a bit complicated but it is over. There is very little interest in for
example the Will and Testament (I actually don't think I have heard it
quoted from or discussed in about 10 years outside these newsgroups).
Speculation about 'authorised interpretation' and 'the institution of the
Gaurdianship' is ignored. The Gaurdianship never existed - Shoghi Effendi
was the Gaurdian. Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi's Writings are taken as
part of Baha'i Scripture (much as Christians take Paul's letters as part
of Scripture). The UHJ (normally used with little distinction from World
Centre as a whole) is just seen as the leadership and no-one is
particularly concerned as to whether they are interpreting, elucidating,
or whatever other words are used. I think it all fairly healthy though
some parts sadden me personally. The very stability and acceptance of
this structure of the Faith probably gives people confidence to question
and criticise.
>
> >Nowadays of course 'covenant breaking' seems to mean only
challenging
the
> >rules regarding transfer of authority.
> >Baha'u'llah's most common use 'breaking the covenant' seems to me to
refer
> >to people who do not accept the new manifestation.
>
> In practice that's what it principally did mean in Baha'u'llah's time.
But when
> we get to the Master, the Guardian and now the House, it has different
> implications. But the most basic principal which underlies them all is
that
> which is embodied in the primordial Covenant, the Covenant of Alast when
God
> addresses all creation with the words, "Am I not your Lord?" and
we
either
> respond or not respond. It is a question of whether we accept the God
who comes
> to us, or try to create him in our own image.
I am sure we will succeed in creating God in our own image - at least in
this life but you are right - we should try not to even though we will
fail.
"Men of wisdom, who had but a notion of the revelation of Thy glory,
conceived a likeness of Thee according to their own understanding, ......"
(The Bab: Selections from the Bab, page 207)
From my favourite prayer. If men of wisdom so fail what chance have I?
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Origins of a Modest Proposal
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:06 AM
Author: Arfarf5215 <arfarf5215@aol.com> wrote: -
>As I have watched the periodic discussion of the Modest Proposal article
over time I have >found it interesting that the origin of the title has
rarely been alluded to. It was originally a >"biting"
satirical piece
written by Jonathan Swift back in 1729 suggesting that the Irish should >put
their children to "good use" by eating them. While the proponents of
the
current day >"Modest Proposal" put forth a veneer of civility, they
were in
fact fully aware of the swift >article and were setting a tone of clear
disrespect and sarcasm with regard to the Institutions of >the
Faith. For
those who might be interested in perusing the original, it can be found at
the >following URL:
>
.http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
>
>I just think it's important to have a little perspective here. There
is
far more going on besides a >modest proposal.
What the Dean actually proposed was that the landlords eat the Irish
children as they had already consumed the parents and the rest of the land.
As the authors of "A Modest Proposal" - Bahai style - are erudite and
educated persons, I would have little doubt that the tone of the Dean's
original was fully understood and the allusion obvious. The AO has
consumed
the spirit of the BF and left nothing in its place.
The AO attacked the Bahai authors as rabidly as the landlords had ravished
Ireland. Where the latter left pestilence and famine the former have
created a desert inhabited by reptiles of the variant apologists for it
present on this and other similar lists.
Actually, for your information, there is a lot less going on because the
Modest Proposal was ignored and spurned.
Dermod.
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Article on the LA study class
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:55 PM
Rick
There was no "dissension or contention" in the study class.
The sessions
were generally wide ranging discussions no different than you would
experience in any college class on any topic. Ask any participant, like
David Young.
Most of Kazemzadeh's warnings were rather vague in nature and his main
concern as stated on the day he visited seemed to be that the faith of other
Baha'is might be severely tested.
On the other hand the nature of the newsletter was mostly just to allow
individuals not living in Los Angeles a chance to participate. Most of
these individuals were doing graduate level work in history or social
sciences. Unfortunately some people had a tendency to allow others to
photocopy these newsletters and thus disseminate them to a wider audience
than intended by the class but still very small.
Very few Baha'is had ever heard of the study class or ever read a newsletter
of the group, still true today I'm sure. There was no intent at all to
disseminate anything until of course Dialogue magazine was started as a way
of engaging the wider community.
Cheer up Rick, you can't spend all your time putting people down.
>That has to be the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen for not
> telling the whole truth.
Randy
--
Rick Schaut <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:95o8r301naq@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:95ntmk$7i2$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <95netr0acq@news1.newsguy.com>,
> > "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom>
wrote:
> > > Your article still manages to leave out significant facts
>
> > There is very little evidence in the written record that references to
> > the Writings were made either in the talk given to the group by Dr.
> > Kazemzadeh or the one given by Judge Nelson.
>
> At the same time, the "written record" is far from
complete. There is
some
> correspondence that we know of only because letters from class
participants
> refer to them. We don't know what was or was not in those letters.
>
> Also, these class participants were rather well-read individuals.
Would
it
> have been unreasonable for the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly to presume
> that they were familiar with the numerous passages in Gleanings in which
> Baha'u'llah condemns dissension in no uncertain terms?
>
> Your claim is a general claim, and isn't limited to what the participants
in
> that study class supposedly knew. Are you claiming that you,
yourself,
are
> ignorant of the numerous passages in the Writings relating to conflict,
> contention and dissension regarding Baha'i Instituions?
>
> Yes, Karen, you can be faulted for not conveying relevant facts of which
you
> do have knowledge even if those facts aren't in the so-called "written
> record". That has to be the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen
for not
> telling the whole truth.
>
> > I am not convinced that either 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi meant to
> > limit all discussion of community issues to controlled venues.
>
> And, no one is claiming that those texts limit all discussion of community
> issues to "controlled venues". The issue has to do with how
_criticisms_,
> particularly those that have little constructive value, are to be voiced
> within the Baha'i community. The National Spiritual Assembly would
rather
> hear these criticism directly rather than via the proverbial grape vine--a
> medium well known for its ability to distort the truth and twist facts.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Article on the LA study class
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:55 PM
Rickster wrote: -
>Your article still manages to leave out significant facts, probably most
important being the >extent to which the institutions have cited
>authoritative Baha'i texts as the basis for their concerns.
Didn't Karen put you right on that - very few quotations (if any) dealing
with the subject matter, more a huffing and puffing around the fact that the
AO just didn't like the whole idea. After all something positive might
have
come out of it - Bahais might have learned to think for themselves and
there'd be no need for these silly Training Institutes or the prats who run
them. And dear old Randy was a participant in the LA Study Group and
didn't
he put you straight on the whole business too. Once again Rick runs in
where fools fear to tread!
>For example, your article states, "At the root of the problem lies
the
administration's insistence >that the only appropriate forum for expressing
concerns about community functioning is within >certain limited
arenas..."
The article fails to point out that the basis of these limits lie in the
>writings of `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and is not something that
Baha'i institutions have >concocted out of some general distaste for
criticism and dissidence.
One of these days somebody will put baffles in the void between your ears so
that when a concept enters it will at least rattle around a bit and perhaps
collide with a brain cell in which it can find rest. As has been amply
verified
from Juan Cole to Alison Marshall and back again via Michael McKenny,
Dialogue and the whole LA Study Group business, there is no room within the
AO for dissidents or people who like to think for themselves. Bahai
institutions don't like to be criticised at all and they're prepared to tell
lies to try to stop it. Lovely People and all who sail with them!
Now don't forget that perfect system that you've found out there!
We're all
waiting with tremendous excitement for your pronouncement!!
The Prim Keeper.
From: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Origins of a Modest Proposal.
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:45 PM
Karen Bacquet wrote:
> Somewhere in my surfing, I ran into a post where David Langness
> actually apologized for the title, and acknowledged that it was a
> mistake.
> I ran a search on "A Modest Proposal", and it's surprising
how widely
> the title is used for various things. Kazemzadeh explained the
meaning
> of the title at that Convention for those who didn't get it, and people
> were horrified. I already recognized the reference, and I think
that's
> why I remembered the name of the article after all those years.
> However, because of the title, I thought the article itself was
> actually some kind of satire,(I also thought the letters from the
> Dialogue editors that he read were part of the article.) and that's one
> reason I was so shocked when I found it on the web.
Hi Karen, thanks for that info about David.
This fuss by certain parties about the title of the article is, IMHO, a
clear indication of much that has gone wrong with the administrative
mindset in the Baha'i Faith. Putting the facts about that article and
the histrionic responses to it before any rational believer in tolerant,
democratic government would be a certain way to poison their attitude
towards the Baha'i Faith forever. The article is a subdued collection of
suggestions written in a moderate tone of voice, and 'Abdu'l-Baha
guarantees that free speech exists in the Baha'i Faith for all
expressions written politely. But the authors chose a title that was a
mild satire! How malicious! How subversive! They must be CAMPAIGNING!
The blindness of those making this sort of defence of the AO is mind
boggling, and their complete inability to see how this would be seen by
rational non-Baha'is is even more staggering.
It seems to me that there is a belief by administrative thinkers that
the AO has some kind of right to introspect about the private thoughts
of individuals as indicated by the flimsiest tissue of a hint (such as
the harmless title of this article). Actually, Baha'u'llah told
_individuals_, not administrators, to search into the hearts. It is an
interesting historical fact that this idea currently framing the
administrative Baha'i mindset was rejected as immoral over four hundred
years ago by a monarch who wasn't always above doing mean things: Queen
Elizabeth rejected advice from her ministers for more limitations on
Catholics because she didn't want "a window into men's souls."
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
A rose grows in the Earth's good soil.From: "Michael McKenny"
<bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: For Michael: "Rebels Within the Cause?"
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:46 AM
Greetings, Karen.
Many thanks for letting me read this article. It was
fascinating.
What a sad tale. You may not be aware that one of the accusations that
was hurled at liberals on Talisman was that we'd been infected by this
LA study class. I replied at the time that the closest I'd been to LA
was Edmonton, Alberta (April 1972) and Chicago (July 1975), so Juan and
I couldn't have been having tea together in LA at the time of this
study class (an allusion to Muslim allegations that Baha'is were
putting something in the tea and this explained conversions).
FreeNet claims Themestream articles are improperly addressed,
so
I'm not able to read them. I would thus be grateful if you posted the
ones about the expulsion of Alyson Marshall and Talisman.
Many thanks for this. I think it's a story that should be as
widely known as possible. Having independent investigation of truth
as an essential principle, declaring this is the age for the maturity
of humanity and adopting the slogan of "Unity in Diversity" are not
compatible with an imposed doctrine of uniform, thoughtless obedience
to each and every dictate of Council, including the rule of censorship.
To Glastnost and Perestroika Within Baha'i,
Michael
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your interest in my article. I pasted this straight from
my rough draft, and although I looked it over, there still may be some
slight descrepancies between this and the final published version.
Other group members might note that I don't get paid my two cents from
Themestream when people read my articles on a newsgroup. It is my hope
that this will put the silly charge that I'm doing it for the money to
rest.
It is, however, an even greater hope, Michael, that you will enjoy the
article. Did you get to see my articles on Alison Marshall's expulsion
and the Talisman crackdown? If you are interested and have time to
read them, I would be happy to post those for you as well.
Love, Karen
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Article on the LA study class
Date: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:01 PM
Rick
I don't think these notes were ever distributed very widely at all before
the internet thing. For example every so often one of the Orthodox groups
sends out a mailing to all the LSA's in the U.S. Did you know this?
Have
you ever received one?
Now if the LA Study Group had done something like that with material which
questioned say the status of the UHJ in the community then I would have been
the first to object. The LA Study Group never sent out "wide"
mailings in
any sense of the word. They probably would have been smarter not to have
mailed anything to someone who didn't regularly attend meetings but that
wouldn't have prevented the members from acting to distribute papers to
friends or people they thought would be interested in it. At best that
would only have delayed what eventually happened by a year or so.
I think what is more relevant is that with the advent of the WWW this very
thing has become a crucial sticking point for the entire AO. I think the
faith rises or falls on its ability to grant its members freedom of thought,
freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.
Cheers, Randy
--
Rick Schaut <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9619le02nb@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:a3mg6.2795$k06.274136@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > I guess if they are on the internet everyone can read them now.
>
> I was hoping to get at some relatively rigorous notion of what "too
wide"
or
> "not too wide" a distribution means in this context. If the
best we can
do
> is say that it's a judgement call, then guess who gets to make that
> judgement call?
>
> > I guess you
> > can always forbid people to think if you don't like the results.
>
> Actually, I think one root of the problem was people not thinking enough,
> but that's probably another discussion altogether.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
From: "Ian McCarthy" <ianmcca@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Bugs in the Software
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:33 PM
Rick Schaut observed that:
> Baha'u'llah appointed `Abdu'l-Baha
> ....Abdu'l-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi
> ... Baha'u'llah established the Universal House of Justice
> `Abdu'l-Baha stated that we are obligated to be obedient to it,
> We aren't talking about fine points of esoteric questions of mystical
spirituality.
> We're talking about clear instructions.
It seems to me, Rick, that for you religion is just a set of instructions, a
software program.
You run it and it doesn't work. You run it again and it still doesn't work.
You keep on running it and sometimes it seems that it sort of looks like
it's almost going to work (maybe tomorrow) but it never really does what
it's supposed to do. But you don't blame the software, because the label
says it's infallible. *Thank you for buying the Most Perfect Program. It is
indeed Most Perfect. If it doesn't work its not our fault, it's yours*. How
about that for a product warranty!
I'm not saying that it should enable you to reach instant enlightenment. I'm
not talking about fine points of esoteric questions of mystical
spirituality. I don't go in for navel gazing anymore. I'm talking about
changing the world. About, for example, growing to a critical mass to be
able to have an actual physical effect on the real world out there, to steer
it in a certain direction. To ring in the Kingdom. I don't see the Baha'i
Faith doing that and I don't see it being able to do it even in the far
distant future at current rates of growth and in its current sad condition.
And above all with its current inflexible attitude of arrogant
self-sufficiency.
The software is not working. The instructions are clear but they don't work.
What do you do?
I know! - You blame humanity, you blame everyone else. The Program is
Perfect but humans aren't. The software is not corrupt, but people are. They
are stupid and they can't understand it. They don't understand how to use it
and they haven't the sense to realise that it really is working perfectly
even though it looks as if it's doing nothing and going nowhere. But one day
many years from now they will all wake up and suddenly understand that it
only wasn't working because they didn't believe that it was.
Or not enough of them. If only everyone had been like Good ol' Rick and
always read every page of the instruction manual and followed the perfectly
clear instructions to the very last letter, then everything would have
worked just fine... and suddenly everything will, because they will finally
have got the Most Perfect Message!
And I suppose that's all perfectly possible, but would you really expect all
reasonable people to agree that it is probable? Isn't it much more likely
that there are some bugs in the software? Instead of frantically bashing
away at your keyboard and repeating ad infinitum *I'm sorry sir, that's
impossible. There can't be anything wrong with the Most Perfect Program. It
must be working because it says it is! It must be Infallible because it says
so on page 333 of the Most Perfect Manual!*, wouldn't you be better employed
listening to the users all around the world who are calling in to report the
bugs that they have found?
I mean, really, what kind of way is that to run a religion? *The Customer is
always Wrong*.
Most Perfect Regards,
Ian
P.S. Can I be Al Marbig now too?
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Article on the LA study class
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 3:37 PM
Dear Robert--
<rlittle95@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:962rne$io7$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This approach to understanding the "AO" and your statement that
"I
> think the faith rises or falls on its ability to grant its members
> freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience."
> posits a mental attitude which I feel reveals what I would term as
> childish. I don't mean that in any judgemental way, but rather in the
> medical way explained by Dr. Eric Berne (author of Games People Play).
I don't think it's childish at all, in fact I think it is the
opposite. I
think Baha'is have a right to expect the AO to treat them with not only the
same respect and rights that they can receive in ordinary society but in
fact even greater rights! If the faith has anything to offer at all to
this
sorely tried world it must be something superior to whatever we have come to
expect in our daily world. As an American citizen I enjoy and expect
certain things, as a Baha'i I should have even higher expectations.
Robert have you ever heard of someone saying to a state or city employee
"Hey, I'm a tax payer, I pay your salary?" And you know what
kind of reply
you get from a statement like that? Well that kind of reply from the faith
is not good enough for me and I don't think it is good enough for the
central figures either.!
> Baha'u'llah gave us an understanding - as best I can understand - of
> the human race as being in a constant, progressive state of development
> through a series of stages corresponding to the development of a human
> individual, starting with birth and ranging up to and beyond a point in
> time which separates the childhood of mankind from its maturity, and
> then continuing to evolve through successively higher stages of
> adulthood to a point where the race achieves all its potential to know
> and to love God.
>
> I believe that the Baha'i revelation marks the point in time when the
> race crosses over from childhood into adulthood. It is a process,
> rather than a particular date, and we are now engaged in that epochal
> transformation.
This process should be marked with a greater degree of introspection on the
part of the AO. They need to ask themselves at every instance if they are
truly serving Baha'u'llah and the faith in the way it needs. The faith
pays
lip service to the idea of consultation! That is the primary ingredient!
Without consultation you have a pretty thin soup, my friend. People today
are starving for what the faith has to offer but we aren't doing a good
enough good of cooking to live up to the appeal of the cookbook
illustrations!
> In my estimation, the viewpoints which Randy expresses reveal an
> individual utilizing the mental and emotional tools of a child to
> explain and understand the adult it is in the process of becoming. It
> is easier to look backward than forward, into uncharted territory.
> Well, not easier, but more rewarding.
I'm sure you think you have a point here, but I'll be damned if I can figure
out what it is. Why is it more rewarding to look backward, wouldn't it be
easier? Wouldn't it be tougher but more rewarding to look forward in to
uncharted territory. Maybe I am looking forward into the uncharted
territory and I don't like what I see? Can you prove that each person who
becomes a Baha'is also miraculously becomes someone incapable of committing
a crime, or wrong doing, or acting in a greedy self-serving fashion? Are
some Baha'is above the law? In the U.S. we have managed to get to a place
where we say even the President is not above the law, but in the U.S. there
are places you can take a problem involving the President to and expect to
get a hearing. If you have a problem with a decision of the UHJ where do
you take it? I don't think asking this question is out of line for any
honest person. This is an honest question that needs to be answered if
*non-baha'is* are to learn to love and respect the faith and its
institutions. That is the true thrust of my points which you find merely
childish. How we present ourselves to the world and how well we live up to
that image is the paramount test of maturity.
>
> I think that the relationship between "unfettered search after
truth"
> and "absolute obedience to everything He hath revealed" is
crucial to
> understanding and living that maturity which Baha'u'llah promises will
> be ours. To a child, one can either obey absolutely, or one can be
> unfettered, but not both. However, an adult ought to be able to
> understand that life is choice, all choice and nothing but choice,
> including the choice of obedience - rational, logical, consistent
> obedience to God. This is what Baha'u'llah seems to me to be requiring
> of His servants.
I get the sense that you are mixing two or three ideas together here.
Is
this a kind of stew or goulash? Do you actually expect a child to be
absolutely obedient, or would you prefer that the child be obedient in
certain things that might jepordize his life but a little more adventursome
in things that might provide a good learning experience. Does one stay
absolutely obedient as an adult? If mankind is transforming from the
childhood to an adulthood doesn't that imply that he will become even more
capable of making adult like choices? Don't we then get an even greater
freedom rather than a diminution thereof or worse yet a complete cessation
of? How can obedience to God be rational, logical and consistent?
Can love
be rational, logical and consistent? I don't think so!
Robert, I think you have some confused ideas on the nature of personal
freedom and the idea of obedience to the teachings of God and the
institutions. Could this be the result of unresolved childhood conflicts
(this is a joke, no need to answer)?
>
> We have seen what can happen when individuals or groups stray into one
> extreme or the other. We have inflicted on ourselves numerous societies
> which demand total obedience, but examples of societies which require
> freedom of conscience have been vanishingly rare. Modern democracies
> such as the United States have attempted to achieve that marriage of
> faith and freedom which Baha'u'llah so beautifully illustrates, but
> their successes have been something less than total.
No problem with that. U.S> democracy is hardly perfect, but it is
"free" to
attempt to "perfect" itself even if such a state is impossible to
achieve.
> The "AO" so often referred to in a disparaging way by critics
is in
> reality the community of Baha'is. There are people who consider
> themselves Baha'is at present who do not participate in the life of
> their community, so in a functional way the Baha'i administrative order
> is something separate from them and their lives, but for those Baha'is
> who do participate in the life and activity of their community, the
> reality is that the elected institutions extend outward through
> committees, trees, task forces, councils and the like to include every
> living Baha'i. It is one organic whole, a composed organism.
This says nothing about honest criticism meant to help the faith grow and
mature. When David proposed his Modest Proposal was he expecting an honest
debate on his suggestions or a vicious unreasoned attack that would last
years and drive him from the faith? How does David participate in the AO
now? Do you suppose he attends feast? Do you see him at the annual
elections? Can we get Vic Bonds to explain this?
In India they have four castes, and they also have the
"untouchables."
Casteless persons who are not allowed to touch people of caste or even to
look at them in public. If the body politic of baha'i doesn't include
everyone, including the critics, then aren't you creating a new class of
untouchable? People who the AO says are not *good enough* to be Baha'is?
>
> It is not for the Baha'i administrative order to grant anything. The
> very idea is contrary to the central concept of the oneness of mankind
> as I understand it.
Well, I'm glad you understand it. It sounds like if the faith is an
organic
whole then whatever it does is justice, so any punishment it decides on is a
just punishment. Correct? Yet we know that the AO can also reverse a
decision. If the first decision was in fact perfectly just and correct,
what do you call the second decision?
Why would the AO even if it is the entire body politic not be able to grant
something to itself? Who will set society's rules if not the AO? Are you
saying the the UHJ will never legislate, will never make a decision, will
never change any ruling or ordinary law? If something isn't forbidden in
the text don't they have the right to grant it?
You act as if you have to oppose something I say not because of what I say
but because I say it.
> I obey my House of Justice/Spiritual Assembly not
> because the House of Justice tells me I must, but because Baha'u'llah
> tells me I must and I have freely chosen to do so. I question my House
> of Justice not because I wish to force it to think as I think, but in
> order for it's decisions and actions to reflect the very best
> understanding possible at that moment. I must both obey and question,
> not one or the other, or neither.
I'm with you up to the last sentence. The last thing I would want is
for
anyone else to think like I think. But your last sentence sounds confused
and unfinished in thought. If you question in a halfhearted uncaring way
without passion how can you pose the best questions you are capable of? In
U.S. law, which is hardly perfect, the accused gets a passionate advocate.
English law is different but they still get an advocate. What do we get in
Baha'i?
>
> Any effort to divide and separate the community of mankind, or the
> Baha'i community, is an effort which is contrary to the spirit and the
> intent of the Baha'i writings. The Baha'i community is highly
> imperfect, but it is growing progressively more mature, more obedient
> and more questioning. You may decry its faults, or you may strive to
> perfect it. Choice.
>
> From time to time, some individuals will stray over into blind
> obedience or into blind lack of faith. Those individuals tend to be
> unhappy people, by and large. In fact, I believe that a radiant joy of
> life is a fairly good indicator of an individual who is in balance and
> on the right path.
>
> What question did 'Abdu'l-Baha' invariably ask His listeners while in
> America? "Are you happy?" He asked it repeatedly, and asked if we
are
> not happy in this Day, for what day were we awaiting?
Some people find their happiness in posing questions. Some people who
are
actually good at this pose difficult questions.
Cheers, Randy
From: "Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au>
Subject: Re: REPOST - Petition for a Bahai Reformation
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:23 PM
Fred,
I think it is about time you stop cross-posting to the
others. They
assume you are a Baha'i and get pissed off at us. It's about time I get out
your address and phone number and I'll cross-post it here and I'll make sure
to include every interesting NG I can find. I was presented with a list of
para-military groups that have NGs and I'll include those. I've done it
before so don't feel I wouldn't again. You need to realise that you are
causing harm and we're tired of it.
MEE
"
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Theocracy
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 6:57 PM
Hi Pat,
>The liberal government of the US only recently, the past 35 years,
decided
>to
>protect the rights of all adult citizens equally. It was not so long
ago,
>nor
>far away, when signs reading "Whites Only" and "Colored"
were displayed in
>various public facilities on this side of the pond. Drive down the
Falls
>Road,
>for the scenic route in civil tolerance. Ah, the shrines of western
>liberalism
>- they smell like smoke, they look like mirages, they sound like Orangemen
>marching by their charred victims.
We can justify everything by reference to revealed religious truth - aren't
there guys up in the backwoods who advocate their own form of Theocracy, per
the Bible, which will entail returning the Blacks to slavery as their proper
place in life because, as we all know, black skin is the mysterious mark
placed on Cain for the murder of his brother.
You know when we scratch away at every conflict, right there at the heart of
it is religious rectitude of the most righteous kind - "My religion is
right
which means that yours is wrong and therefore I have a God-given right to
beat the shit out of you or do anything else to you to convert you to my
religion when, in turn, you can also beat the shit out of anybody who
doesn't agree with us. And when we get to be 51% of the population or
simply take over power by some other way, we can beat the crap out of
everybody!"
From Kosovo to Auschwitz, via Bosnia and Rwanda, circling through South
Africa, taking in the Klan en route, a detour to the Aboriginal peoples of
the Antipodes, marching up the Falls Road, provided you're a good Fenian but
Orange feet shall never walk from Drumcree via the Garvaghy Road
http://www.grandorange.org.uk/ As they say in certain quarters: -
"What's the difference between an apple and an orange?
You'll never find an apple bastard"
Arrogance, superiority, bigotry, hatred - all of these superlative qualities
and more are to be found in the organisations which rule every religion.
Is
the Bahai Faith any different? Most certainly not - it exhibits these
qualities in exquisite intricacy. Fortunately it is not in any other
position than to gauge enviously at those religions which have achieved the
numerical status to actively practice their barbarisms and envisage
wistfully the day when it hopes to be able to do likewise.
When we look back we see that when the religions were put in their place all
sorts of good things flowed - from schools (Churches never liked an educated
flock), to statutorily established social welfare (Churches always liked
charities which controlled the flock), to a free press (Churches never liked
a press which might expose their corruption) but above all to a society
whose government refused to regulate private morality.
So long live the secular state - may it increase in power and influence and
succeed in keeping the religious organisations in their proper place - away
from anything that would allow them to continue to practise their
barbarities. In the West we have had 2 millennia of Christian hatred - it
will take time to undo its influence but I, for one, have no intention of
seeing Christian bigotry replaced by Bahai brutality.
As ever,
Dermod.
From: "Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au>
Subject: Apology to Mr. Glaysher
Date: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:41 PM
I would like to apologise to Mr. Glaysher, publicly, for threatening
him
with a posting of his name and address on the Usenet NGs. I shall no longer
be conversant with Mr. Glaysher in any way. This action, had I taken it,
would have compromised my commitment to acting as a Baha'i and to guidance
given us by the Universal House of Justice. I can only hope that I learn to
recognise my need to communicate within the boundaries of humility and
service rather than my own need for personal gratification.
Mark E. Elderkin
From: "Gerald Smith" <gerald.smith38@gte.net>
Subject: Hmmm.... Interesting!
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2001 3:05 PM
Greetings, everybody!
I am Gerald Smith and I was a Bahai for 15 years, though I have no faith
whatsoever in that or any other form of Middle Eastern Monotheism. I find
it interesting that the dragon's teeth of totalitarianism sown by the
leaders of the Bahai Faith are starting to sprout. I was led out of the
faith by my awareness of how badly the faith was stagnating in the 1980's,
by the obvious inflexible rigidity of the leadership of the faith, parroting
the same thing over and over again they are still parroting, by the heavy
emphasis on proselytizing combined with lack of any real community spiritual
life, and most of all, by spending a year in Saudi Arabia where I got to
know some true, enlightened Muslims (none of whom were Saudis) and realized
that the best parts of Bahai were stolen wholesale from Islam.
It doesn't surprise me that the seedlings of what I saw ten years ago are
bearing fruit now. It is obvious to me that the Covenent is dead, the Bahai
Faith a mere cult of no real importance that will doubtless linger for a
long time but has lost its chance to become a first-class world religion.
I
believe it was Shoghi Effendi himself who said the Faith would have poor
chances at long term survival if it were deprived of the Guardianship and he
was right, but the fault is largely his for not writing a will, not having
children and excommunicating every relative who could have succeeded him.
The faith has effectively been dying since and has largely already
accomplished the little further that could be expected of it. Now that the
"dirty linen" the leaders of the faith so long successfully hid from
the
public is being prominently displayed, only long term decline can be
foreseen.
I don't regret the time that I spent as a Bahai, but it is to bad the faith
has been so ill-served by its leadership. Has anyone noticed how closely the
organization of the Bahai Faith as instituted by Shoghi Effendi parallels
that of the Communist Party? Right down to dictatorial control of the center
by a self-perpetuating oligarchy, "democratic centralism" and
multi-year
plans. This is a great way to organise a small, power-hungry core of
disciplined fanatics into a totalitarian regime, but as with Marx-Leninism
it will guarantee the long term decline and eventual disappearance of the
faith.
Oh well, please keep in mind there is no one true religion and there are
plenty of other faiths you can explore in your spiritual seeking. I could
recommend the more liberal and enlightened forms of Sufi but I myself am
Pagan and polytheistic and more interested in the Primordial religions of
the Earth.
Peace and Joy to you, Pilgrim!
JerryBear
From: "Gerald Smith" <gerald.smith38@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Hmmm.... Interesting!
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:19 PM
Hmmmm..... Even more interesting!
Well, Mr. Elderkin, It would seem YOU are the one who is out of place here.
This place is dedicated pretty much to those critical of the Way Things Are
in the Faith. You are the one supporting Orthodoxy on here against us
infidels, apostates and assorted heretics. I have to congratulate you on
your mastery of being nice in a nasty way or being nasty in a nice way. It
seems to be one of the major accomplishments of Fundamentalist Bahai's such
as yourself, you raise hypocracy to a fine art indeed!
In the beginning of the Faith in this country, Bahai was to a large extent
seen as a personal mystical path by quite a lot of the earliest American
believers. I believe that in the long run, a return to this tradition may be
the salvation of the Cause. The current attempt to garner political power
on the part of the current institutions is increasingly pathetic and doomed
and endangers the future of everything the Founders of your Faith attempted
to accomplish. This is the real reason behind the hypocracy and tyrrany
that increasingly strangles the Living Spirit of the Faith and turns it into
a mere cult of political correctness.
I am sorry, but it is increasingly apparent to me that Shoghi Effendi
effectively destroyed the Covenent by failing to make provision for another
Guardian to succeed him after his death and the Faith has since been cast
adrift. The complete and abject failure of the Universal House of Justice to
fulfill the original vision of the Founders has become apparent. Shoghi
Effendi once said that the Bahais could very well fail completely at their
task and it would accordingly be up to the followers of the next
dispensation to bring about the Most Great Peace. I would say that his
gloomy scenario has pretty much come about, no?
I believe, anyway, that all Gods (and Goddesses, including the
"One True
God" of the Middle Eastern Monotheistic traditions are ultimately human
archetypes. They are attempts to connect to the One, the shadowy
inhuman
utterly mysterious force that is behind Fate. A really good God archetype
may be favored by the One if it supports Its purposes and be given real
power. I believe that the Founders of the Bahai Faith had a real sense of
the One's future purposes and could have generated a religion of immense
power but apparently it didn't quite work out.
All that we really know of the One is the evidences we see of It's Will
being worked out in the world. My current preferred tradition, Asatru
refers to the One as "Wyrd". My preferred God is Woden, the God
of my long
ago ancestors and my Goddess is Freya, the Lady. Woden is dedicated to
discovering the purposes of Wyrd with a view to ensuring the future survival
of the human race and the world. Since the Great Calamaty long foreseen by
nearly every known tradition (including my own, it is called "Ragarok")
appears to be waiting to happen in this century, I want to be a helper in
this great purpose.
The essence of Woden is the ideal of wisdom earned through sacrifice.
I feel, once most Bahais have finally given up the pathetic delusion that
they are going to take over the world and feel a need to emphasize spiritual
life rather than politics, power and proselytizing, then perhaps they will
consider making a reconciliation with the more enlightened elements of
Islam, especially Sufi, with whom Bahais otherwise have so much in common. I
sense that someday Bahais will start to feel the need to get in touch with
their Islamic roots. The Bahai Faith is a sort of Islamic version of the
Unitarian/Universalist Church.
In my case, I very strongly believe in reincarnation. I have only been a
human being 2 or 3 times and I still know what I was in the animal world
before I was first born as a human (a bear, of course, for a million years
or more). My main task and interest is still solidly located in THIS world
and I won't be ready to transcend to whatever it is that lies beyond for
many lifetimes yet. Thus, I am a natural follower of Earth-based
religions,
such as paganism and shamanism.
I have very pleasant memories of the Bahai Faith and I am sorry to see what
has happened to it. I would still be willing to help the true
spiritual
essence of your Faith to survive, and once it has become truly spiritual and
democratic and free of its current political pretensions and dictatorial
power structures might even be willing to include some of its practices
among my own spiritual disciplines, though I would never become a member of
it again. Maybe a few dozen lifetimes down the transmigration pipeline...
There you have it Mark, some reasons for my interest in being here.
Keep in
mind that on here you have absolutely no power to silence or censor anyone,
though you of course can attempt to manipulate or intimidate people if you
think you can get away with it.
Have a NICE day!
Sincerely,
JerryBear
Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3aabfa3f.0@news.acay.com.au>...
>Dear Gerry,
> I am sorry you have decided to go
on your own route, but that is
the
>way you feel it seems. I hope you relieved yourself here, in some way, and
>will now find a news group dedicated to your new convictions.
> Be in peace,
>MEE
From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fred's valued contributions - how to killfile Patrick
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:25 PM
>
> "Stuart Palin" <kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:_hpx6.6631$u93.932586@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AC6130A.13BB6207@ameritel.net...
> >
> > Welcome to usenet, TRB and ARB, Stuart,
>
Indeed yes! Stuart! Welcome to Hell on Earth! BTW how is
Stroke
City these days?
>
> Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.
Mein Gott! The AO speaks the secret of its failure!
>
> Perhaps Mr Glaysher,
> if you backed up your venom with facts, rather than grandiose and
> unsubstantiated claims I would consider your opinions worthwhile.
As it
> is,
> from a purely objective point of view, you seem to spend most of
your time
> pouring out tired posts attacking this religion. You reiterate the
same
> points over and over again under new header and avoid any form of
> intelligent debate. Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism
fit you
> like a glove.
>
Well now, Stuart! Before you start making half cocked statements
like that I suggest you take a wee trot over to Fred's site and take a long
slow look because it is full of FACTS about the unmitigated corruption at
the
heart of the AO. No doubt Fred is a tad angry but maybe he deserves that
having been treated like dirt by the obsequious venomous toads in the AO.
But
one thing you got to say for him - he has got his facts and the facts of
others, similarly treated, well posted at that site together with links to
other sites that may just be as interesting and as full of FACTS. Of
course nobody expects a BIGS to be able to distinguish the fact that Fred's
site is full of FACTS - it's a kind of mental block that years of adherence
and subservience to the AO has accomplished.
So! Like! Use yur loaf and tak' a wee dander over there, afore ye
open yur bake again, cos ye've blarged intil an area where some folks don't
take kindly tae gulpins!
> I only joined this newsgroup today in the hope of some
intelligent
> discussion, instead I find tired arguments being trotted out for a
> peanut-gallery crowd. Such a waste of time, both mine and yours. I
hope
> you
> all enjoy Mr. Glaysher's spectacle, I certainly won't be staying
for
> another
> encore.
You sure came to the wrong place. You need the kinder moderated
places like SRB where everything is kissing the ring and everybody's pals in
the
unmodulated self praise of those who are in the right religion and
everybody else is an poor unfortunate or an "enemy of the
Faith". If you
want intelligent conversation you have no chance here - full of fundie
bigots. Of course you might feel at home with that type of client.
Chin Chin
Dermod.
>
>
From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:33 PM
> "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010331002616.28097.00002915@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> Dear Pat,
>
> She is not going to be able to persuade a judge that there is
something
> wrong with applauding someone. A judge would like find it nonsensical
>that electioneering was termed "rigging.' And she says nothing
about the
> Baha'i teaching that might make this intelligible.
>
> warmest, Susan
Dear Lady,
Are you fishing again? No doubt, when it comes to a hearing,
evidence will be adduced to show that "electioneering" is forbidden in
the
Bahai
system. Now the question that will then be posed is, in light of this ban,
what actions could constitute electioneering that would be in
contravention of the ban?
Now is it conceivable that behaviour that drew particular attention
to one individual over and above any other in an atmosphere of quiet and
prayerful consideration of the respective merits of all persons in the
community, might just be construed as a subtle, but nonetheless, illegal
electioneering technique? We must needs await the evidence in a hearing
before
coming to a conclusion.
As in most things you fundies miss the point - it is inconceivable
to you that anybody would, in the name of conscience, oppose the evil
fascist empire that you support. Ring out a crisis, see the "enemies
of the
faith" on the march and out you people come from your lairs like maggots
and vultures attracted by the blood of a fresh smelling corpse?
Then the fishing starts and maggots are good bait for coarse fishing!
There
is information of sorts in the Complaint filed before the Court but
if you start appearing critical and incredulous perhaps more information
might be gleaned that you can bring back to the Gruppenfuhrers who control
you and pull your strings. Sad to say there is no information out here for
you to glean. Like I said Yorgos is a sharp cookie who does more with his
head than keep his hat up in the air. The guy is playing it close (just
enough disclosed to show that there is a case to answer) but I think he has
already hoist this LSA and the NSA - after all, no lawyer goes to Court
without having a better than fifty per cent chance of winning.
Of course if he is, as Rickster has suggested, a "rookie" he is
all
the more dangerous. "Rookies" like to win - there are
reputations to be
made
from that. So maybe he is that bit better prepared, maybe he has taken a
longer harder look at the evidence, put more hours into it than usual -
maybe, if it is his first case he has decided not to take it to Court unless
he has a better than 80 per cent chance of winning.
Who knows but that the LSA/NSA have screwed up the preliminaries so
much that they have actually handed him a case? The Complaint notes that
Ms Buchorn has complained of these matters to the NSA but it has done
nothing. It invites the question - has the NSA sat on the complaint for a
long time, has it ignored it and is thus caught with its trousers down when
the
lawyer comes on the scene? Or perhaps the NSA responded to the Complaint
with a 'snow' job - the embryonic immaturity sob story that is invariably
invoked under option one as a means of dealing with dissent? Been there,
seen it - loada waffle!
None of your prattling on this or any other forum about this case is
relevant however - like me, you're not involved. Like me you don't
have even "hearsay" evidence to proffer. Your comments to date
have been
naught but ill-informed speculation - efforts to rubbish a case you have no
hard information on. Why are you doing it? Are your puppet masters
so
worried that they have got to try to proffer some defence on this forum or
are they already setting the scene for a pre-trial surrender or a post trial
humiliation? Are you endeavouring to set up the faithful to view
this as another bit of martyrdom inflicted by yet more of these internal
enemies of the Faith?
What this case represents is a BIGS standing up for what she
believes to be a total abomination of Bahai and civil law, in which it is
alleged
the NSA has knowingly colluded in failing to take steps to rectify the
situation. I note that Nima who has lived in this community has been
unable
to
offer any information contrary to the details noted in the Complaint and I
assume that there is weight of evidence ready for Court, otherwise this
Complaint would not have been filed in Court. Irrespective of the outcome,
the fact
that such a Complaint has been filed in Court is a damning indictment of
the AO modus operandi.
This is nothing new of course; we have all seen it before - Alison,
Michael etc etc. ad nauseam. But ponder this, dear lady: -
"The worst enemies of the Cause are in the Cause and mention the
Name of God. We need not fear the enemies on the outside for such can be
easily dealt with. But the enemies who call themselves friends and who
persistently violate every fundamental law of love and unity, are difficult
to be dealt with in this day, for the mercy of God is still great. But ere
long this merciful door will be closed and such enemies will be
attacked with a madness.. "
Abdu'l-Baha answers questions asked by Dr. E. C. Getsinger in the
Holy Land: Star of the West, Vol. VI, No. 6, p. 45) - Multiple Authors:
Lights of Guidance, page 93
Now what was it one the named defendants is alleged to have said? Something
about the "voice of God" - is that it?
As ever,
Dermod.
From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: ^^ bahai ^^ - New Mexico LAWSUIT for Fraud & Libel (sound
familiar?) - FULL TEXT - against bahai instit
Date: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:11 PM
Pete,
Whiny or not, listen to what he has to say. The problems he outlines about
the Baha'is and their authorities are very REAL. I can testify to them
myself.
cheers,
Nima
"PBridge130" <pbridge130@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010331180243.29043.00001194@ng-mr1.aol.com...
>From: "Stuart Palin" kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk wrote:
>A dead link, like all of your members.nbci.com links. Perhaps Mr
Glaysher...(snip)....Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism fit you
>like a glove.
Fanatic? I just find him whiny. He reminds me of the socially
inept kid in
grammar school, the one the teacher had to ask the class to please be nice
to.
Now he's all grown up, but he's still looking for an authority figure to
make
everyone else play nicely with him.
Fred's motto: "Enough about me and my problems -- let's talk
about what YOU
can do for me and my problems."
From: "Thirinel" <thirinel@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - LAWSUIT - ** "Plaintiffs have suffered emotional
damages thereby" ** - FRAUD & LIBEL
Date: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:09 PM
Here, Mark is a kleenex to help you get over your emotional damage.
While I don't agree with Fred's posting to other newsgroups and you will
note I have removed the non-relevant ones, and I more often than not don't
agree with the points he is making, still I think he has as much right as
any other to follow his conscience. And I wonder at a Faith that finds it
necessary to disenroll someone because of criticism
Alma
Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3aea8bab.0@news.acay.com.au>...
>Everytime I read through ARB/TRB I suffer emotional damage from posts by
>Fred Glaysher. At least now, some of the responders from other NGs are
>seeing you for your antics and are realising that you have no connection
>with the Baha'i Faith. It is a real shame that a grown man, while claiming
>some academic attributes, can't find something better to do. Why don't you
>work on your website........?
>M
>> 44. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>
>
From: "Mr Mahdi" <mrmahdi@aol.com>
Subject: Maneck slanders Fred on AOL bahai message board
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:29 AM
Susan Maneck has gotten away with slandering Fred Glaysher on the AOL bahai
message boards by claiming that he hates the bahai faith:
Subject: Re: Suing bahai KGB on AOL
Date: 6/13/01 12:44 AM Central Daylight Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <20010613014429.13674.00007438@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>
>You are using Mahdi as an example! Now THAT is
funny.
>
Yeah, ironic isn't it? I don't know that Fred and Mahdi have anything in
common
other than their mutual hatred for the Baha'i Faith. One is a libertarian while
the other is a rigid fundamentalist.
warmest, Susan
http://www.susanmaneck.com
Mahdi Muhammad
http://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.html pdodenhoff
7/1/01 10:30 AM 33 out of 35
PK,
Though I'm certain it will have no effect on you, I just want to say that my
reasons for speaking of *my* experience as an assistant have nothing to do with
bragging about having an *in* with the AO. Those who know me personally, *and
who are still Baha'is* can vouch for my character.
I did not base my response to you on your single post, but rather from thevery
obvious attitude you *took* in that post. I did not attck you, *you* attacked me
because it is clear that you are an example of the type of individual (Baha'i or
not) who cannot bear questioning or criticism of *anything.* You did not answer
any of the questions posed by me or otehrs in this thread. You just jumped in
with your perceived sword of righteousness swinging in all directions.
Yes, it is people like you who force others from their faith.
Your last post is simply another example of the fundamentalist, fanatical,
behavior that is leading the Baha'i Faith down the road of parochialism and
cultism, a road on which everyone must march "lock-step" with you and
other fundamentalist-minded individuals or be stepped on, shoved out of the way,
or worse.
Personally, I don't believe you will succeed. While I may disagree with some
Baha'i teachings and left because of them (oh, thanks for theleft-handed
compliment by the way)we are still very friendly with many Baha'is who recognize
the teachings of Baha'u'llah as something far above the sectarianism you are
trying to turn it into.
And it is to *thos* Baha'is I direct my questions and comment, those who can be
civil and to whom I will be civil in kind.
I checked out these threads because RM had posted here and found some
interesting discussions happening. When I read your response initially my
reaction was simply to leave. But though I think you would prefer that, I will
not. Instead, I'll just ignore you. Will that be good enough for you?
Paul
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:18 AM
Karen
Questioning peoples motives has been the critique du jour of the Baha'i
community since the beginning of the Guardianship. It is the single modus
operandi for eliminating those with ideas that are out of joint with the
conservative fundamentalist clique that runs the U.S. NSA and the UHJ. It
was used a lot by the U.S. NSA members starting in the 1920's and they have
never stopped using it. I doubt that they ever will because they are
clearly unable to come up with real ideas and real concerns that would
justify their actions. Also it has worked well for them all these years
(at
least until the advent of the internet).
Basically when the good Doctor runs out of rational arguments she tends to
get really really worried about your motives. I am sure she is worried
about my motives right now!
Cheers, Randy
--
Karen Bacquet <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote in message
news:93lo32$9k5$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> If Dr. Maneck would care to condescend to look through the recent
> archives of this newsgroup, she would see that I have, in fact,
> enumerated my motives, since they were so recently called into
> question. In fact, I think that post may be somewhere in this
"common
> ground" thread.
>
> I don't think my critics care much about my motivation at all. I
think
> they just don't like the fact that I write articles about current
> Baha'i issues. The questioning of my motives is just an attempt to
> destroy my credibility. It's a whole lot easier than writing articles
> expressing the opposite point of view, or facing that what I have to
> say makes sense to a whole lot of people. (My articles have over 1000
> hits now.) I am currently the highest rated author in Themestream's
> Baha'i category, with seven of the top ten articles being mine. And I
> didn't do that -- the readers did that, because they are the ones that
> rated me. If people didn't like what I was saying, those articles
> would sink like a rock to the bottom of the list and be heard from no
> more.
>
> I think there are some people here who, if they are concerned about
> motives, would benefit from consulting a mirror.
>
> Karen
>
> bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
> > Greetings, Susan.
> > This is a fascinating position. You seem to
argue that the UHJ
> judges
> > individuals on the basis of the motives of these individuals and that
> the
> > individuals themselves do not know what their own motives are.
> > This justification of inappropriate behaviour
by authority is a
> Most
> > Great Unacceptability for any decent society.
> > And with that this green Druid slips back into
the verdant woods.
>
>
To Life,
> >
> Michael
> >
> > Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> > >
> > > Yeah, it mostly has to do with motive which is sometimes not all
> that easy to
> > > discern.
> > >
> > > Well, since Karin has removed herself from the Baha'i community
she
> really
> > > isn't subject to Baha'i standards of conduct anyhow, so I don't
> know that it
> > > much matters. As for Karin's motives, I'm not sure she knows what
> they are.
> > >
> > > warmest, Susan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in
space,
> with no time
> > > left to start again . . "
> > > Don McLean's American Pie
> > > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR
MARS p2)
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:24 PM
Dave
I think you need some counseling help.
Sincerely, Randy
--
Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109141001.2fd2b8c@posting.google.com...
> Little Better Than the Terrorists
>
> fglaysher
> 9/14/01 7:51 AM 1 out of 2
>
> Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
> articulated in the Writings....
>
> fglaysher
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> To: Fred
> From: the white hot ball of anger in my gut.
>
>
Snip
make me sick.
From: "Curious" <Curious_105@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:32 AM
NightShadow <seals_jay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba302b8.758896975@news...
> There was someone named "Curious" <Curious_105@hotmail.com>
who once
Snip
>. Most of the time I will try to respond to
> messages addressed to me, but if I smell bait, I try to shy away- I
> don't like hooks getting caught in my mouth. In some of your responses
> I smelled bait, so I didn't respond. In other portions, I simply
> haven't had the time to.
You feel 'baited'? Apprehensive that someone/me is out to 'hook' you?
Mate, I have been 'fishing' for explanations and answers for years.
The initial 'lure' I cast within the community- "What constitutes Baha'i
due process" was ignored, over and over again, for years.
So, eventually, I came here, onto the net. Changed fishing hole, changed
questions, lures and baits.....same response.....nothing.
Yes, I am baiting the Baha'i community, independently fishing for the truth.
Nobody is prepared, willing or able to answer basic questions.
"Why are the fundamentals of due process denied to members of the Baha'i
community".
There is no 'hook'.......just a question that deserves an answer.
> Please don't be condescending with me. I have not been so with you.
No, you have been evasive or absent in response to the questions...
and I have been patient with the Baha'i community too long. If Baha'is,
as a community or as individual representatives on the net cannot, over
a prolonged period, 'condescend' to explain, justify or rectify the absence
of fair due process.....then yes.....my indignation inclines me to
condescending
and demanding language.
> I
> am an individual. Despite the "fundie" mudslinging that goes on
here,
> and sometimes in my general direction, you will find that I am content
> to listen to rational commentary as long as it isn't personally
> insulting or repugnant.
I have not called or inferred that you are a "fundie".
If am unaware of anything that might be considered 'insulting' or
'repugnant'...
......a fart reference perhaps?;-). By all means, cite or repost any such
behavior.
> I do not find evidence of a lack of due process, according to your
> wishes, to be embarrassing.
In a community that proclaims Justice to be the best beloved of all things?
The absence of due process is not embarrassing?
I'm a Baha'i.....I find it profoundly embarrassing, repulsive and un
necessary.
> I DO find it unfortunate, and I am
> investigating some stories on my own, but I don't do it out of
> embarrassment. I am learning- which takes audacity and patience.
With respect....How long does it take to determine, as I believe you have
conceded, the absence of due process? What further 'learning' is required?
Why is there such 'audacious' silence on the issue?
What stands in the way of simple action and implementation?
(Beyond the current 'culture of denial and avoidance ;-)
> >1/ You could be thinking about it? What's there to think about?
Whether
> >or not you as a Baha'i want justice in the community?
>
> Don't try to bait me, please.
What makes the above question 'bait' mate? It is honest, open, simple and
straightforward.......no 'hooks', no secret or hidden agendas.....I want to
know.....so I ask.....you infer something unpalatable or deceptive about the
questions.....you take the time to talk about and around the questions.....
but....in accord with all my previous experience....you do not address or
answer
the questions.
Why?
Snip
>Of course I want
> justice in the Baha'i community- any sane Baha'i would. That is not to
> say that I think justice is overwhelmingly lacking, but I concede that
> is HAS lacked at times.
No Baha'i, over a ten year period, has been able to delineate the
'processes'
(not 'principles') by which Justice is determined and achieved within the
faith.
In those circumstances it must be concluded that any justice achieved has
been the happenstance consequence of 'good luck' and 'good will/intention'.
We have no statistics on outcomes, only the growing number of disillusioned,
disenfranchised and ex Baha'is who object to the absence of fair due
process.
Why equivocate, why not act?
>Don't presume that I haven't thought about it-
I don't, I presume-on the basis of your posts- that there is something
more that needs to be known or determined or some passage of time
that needs to transpire before some basic action can take place.
I reject all the rationales, excuses, explanations and justifications that I
have heard thus far.
> I am also investigating on my own, to make sure that my thoughts are
> valid. I go at my own pace. And forgive me if it *sounds* insulting,
> but I'm not likely to take anyone else's word for anything without
> backchecking their info- that includes you, so posting anecdotes of
> other people's experiences is mere conjecture to me... heresay.
Then I invite you to rely upon and examine no more than the administrative
procedure handbooks themselves....there you will find no reference to
the basics of fair due process. That is not 'conjecture' or 'hearsay'...that
is
examination of determinable facts. There is nothing in the Baha'i procedures
that ensures the provision of a fair hearing.
> >2/ You agree with the majority of what I posted? Hmmmmmm;-)?
>
> Agreement is not necessarily to be equated with belief. I agree that
> there *might* be potential for the Baha'i AO to blunder unjustly-
> which, I believe, is at the heart of your concerns...
No, that is not the "heart of my concerns". It is far from a case
of *might*
be "potential" for the AO to "blunder unjustly"....It is
that in the absence
of due process the AO *must* and unavoidably *has* blundered *repeatedly*.
How could it possibly be otherwise?
You might as well tell me that a Surgeon who never follows the procedure of
washing his hands or instruments before operating *might* expose *some*
patients
to infection. I don't care how well intentioned or prayerful he might
be....no
sane/modern person would.....it is dangerous neglect....pure and
simple....and the
cause of hearty and reasonable concern.
>not that the AO
> *has* been unjust so much that it might become more so if things don't
> change or at least get acknowledged. Of course, I understand your
> concern that the AO *has* been unjust in the past- who wouldn't be?-
> but each case is unique and should be looked at with a spiritually
> discerning eye.
With all the respect and restraint I can muster.....this is bunk, piffle,
crap.
I cannot express sufficiently my dismay and disgust for the propensity
of Baha'is to invoke 'Spiritual Principles' in response to the absence
of 'Procedural Safeguards'. It is offensive in the extreme.
In the past I have gone so far as to deem such behavior as constituting
no more than 'Spiritual Masturbation' and I do so again here.
Here is the "core" of my concern....played out again as it has
been so many
countless times before....I speak to you of broad fair due process-and you
evoke
the need for a case specific "spiritually discerning eye".
There in a nutshell is the core of 'Baha'iThink'...."if there is something
wrong it
must be a 'spiritual' problem requiring a 'spiritual' investigation and the
application
of an individual 'spiritual' solution...................SPIRITUAL
MASTURBATION.
From day one, years ago, when I first experienced a serious unsubstantiated
allegation from a fellow Baha'i...found myself surrounded by 'spiritual
people'
who embraced 'quietude' in the face of abuse of a fellow member....found
myself denied the opportunity to respond to the allegation...found my self
in
a community that immediately reached for the 'spiritual solution' and
invited
all, aggressor and victim, to "Hold hands and visualize the purifying white
light of the love of God".......................and then watch the abuse
take place
again...............and again.
I hold the application of such 'spirituality', then and now, to be
contemptible.
>To make blanket accusations, that the Baha'i AO is
> categorically unjust, is an unjust statement in and of itself, IMHO.
> There is a fine line between what I agree with and what I believe.
Again......I never made such a 'blanket accusation' and I am prompted
to wonder why you might have abundant time and energy to respond to
statements that I have not made and so little time for the questions I have
asked?
I state, 'categorically' that there is nothing within Baha'i procedures to
ensure basic fair due process. That renders the pursuit of justice to be
a matter subject to chance and good intentions....any organization operating
on such a basis can only be described as derelict in its duty of care.
> >3/ Somebody beat you to the punch? I must have blinked....who, has
ever,
> >responded to the issue and clearly delineated due process?
>
> I told you already, that I have no answer for that question as I am
> unqualified. That should suffice, should it not? Who knows what
> someone else's answer might be in the future? All I can tell you is
> what *I* know- and I know that I can't answer that question. In
> regards to due process, I am abdicating any supposition on what should
> be done in favor of more educated minds. Perhaps YOU could answer it
> better than I.
And I have already answered that question....and....ignored as it is, time
and
again....I invite any 'sane' Baha'i to turn their 'spiritual eye' to the
obvious absence
of procedures that would ensure fair due process AND BEGIN TO ACTIVELY
ADVOCATE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION!!!!
Starting with...."No Baha'i shall be subject to an unsubstantiated
allegation or be
denied the opportunity to know the nature or origin of a charge nor denied
the
opportunity to a fair and open hearing".
These basics require no more than the *will* to implement...
That will is obviously absent.
> >> Do not mistake silence for ingorance.
> >
> >I don't, in this context I take it to be rudeness.
>
> It is nice to know that there are people out there who can judge, from
> silence, the intentions of another person's mind.
As I advised Rick....my assessments and predictions are based on observed
behavior not on psychic ability. The pattern of denial, silence, obfuscation
and platitude is, as far as I am concerned,.......rude.
> Perhaps your crystal
> ball isn't as broken as you think. When I am rude, you'll know it-
> it'll be as clear as day-glo.
Have you considered the possibility that you have already been rude
and that 'you' did not know it?
Can you endeavor to grasp just how offensive the notion of "turning
a spiritual eye" to a basic procedural issue is? Is it conceivable, that
in the context of this issue and discussion and in the light of the prior
objections, to utter and evoke the 'spiritual eye' is a denial of Baha' u'
llahs
call to 'Justice'?.............Potentially as 'insulting' as a response
could be?
> >If I am called out or over to discuss an issue and, having engaged
the
> >subject,
> >simply turn away without word or explanation....I would consider
that
> >a lapse in good manners and a failure of intellectual integrity.
> >(At least Rick tells me he is going to cut and run before he does
so....then
> >he will even come back to tell me he is going to do it again;-)
>
> It's refreshing to meet someone who doesn't always want the last word.
I never requested the "last word"....I would have been content
with
advisement
of other obligations or the end of conversation.
> But, sometimes, you should be grateful for it. Furthermore, you've
> given me food for thought. Let me chew on it and stop rushing me! You
> don't want me to get the spiritual/mental equivalent to acid
> indigestion, do you?
Yes.....I want your, and every Baha'is, gut to burn with righteous
indignation
and outrage. People are leaving the faith almost as fast as they come
in...often
as a consequence of the absence of basic justice procedures.
HURRY UP.......there is no reason to delay or time to waste.
> >>Silence CAN be thoughtful.
> >
> >In the context of this discussion...am I to take it that the Baha'i
> >community
> >has been 'thinking' about whether or not it wants the procedures that
will
> >facilitate justice for over two decades?!?......For it has certainly
been
> >'silent'
> >on the issue;-)
>
> No. In the context of MY reply, you are to take it that *I* prefer to
> remain silent when I have nothing to respond with. I am not perfect in
> this, but I do not like to engage in discussions when I KNOW what I
> *don't* know. I can't answer what's on the mind of the entire Baha'i
> community, or the AO- I'm simply not that perceptive. I'm all for
> justice, man, but I cannot mete out justice on the scale which would
> suit you because I am one amongst many.
"Mete out justice on the scale which would suit me"? Again we are
dealing,
not with what I have said, but with what is 'projected' upon what I have
said.
I would be satisfied if I could find 'one' Baha'i....in the community or on
the net
...who would take a stand for or active role in the implementation of the
'basics'
that precede the dispensing of justice.
"One amongst many"? Jay.....each 'one' I speak to is reflective of the
'whole body'
in common preparedness to evocke the 'spiritual' in place of the practicle,
pragmatic
and essential.
(What do Baha'is do when their car runs out of petrol? Pray for mobility
none the less?;-)
> >Silence CAN be thoughtful. It CAN also be rude, evasive, a sign of
> >embarrassment,
> >intellectual and moral defeat and confusion.
>
> It's all a matter of perspective- yours or mine... and I'm kinda
> partial. Attribute whatever views you wish to me, but in the end only
> I know what's going on with me. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
I 'judge' the inadequacy and dysfunction of current procedures, I 'judge'
the collective denial, silence, obfuscation and platitude, I 'judge' each
individual response to be either reflective of the culture of denial or
indicative
of a desire for change, a fair go and justice. Thus far I have found no
Baha'is
active and satisfied within the faith who are prepared to seriously take on
board the need for reform or willing to advocate same. Yet many on the
fringe, inactive or ex who hold the issue to be obvious, urgent and
consistently
denied from within. I 'judge' that to be a matter of profound sorrow.
> >If the sudden silence is never preceded or followed by an
explanation....who
> >would
> >know?;-)
>
> I dunno. Next time, try asking politely and you might get an answer.
> This is not to say that you haven't asked me politely... you haven't
> asked me at all, before now. You merely drew your own conclusions
> about me and my thoughts before being armed with information about me.
Did I? Or did I offer a range of potential explanations for and readings of
the absence of response? Did I draw a conclusion about you or have you
extrapolated that from the 'potential range'? Feel free to cite;-)
The last word is yours;-)
Rod.
> It is not my responsibility to tell you what's going on in my own head
> ALL the time- and it's not your right to know all the time, either.
> But if you'll ask, I'll generally answer- especially if I am able. If
> I don't respond fast enough for you, it's safe to ask me why.
>
> Jay
From: "Mr Mahdi" <mrmahdi@aol.com>
Subject: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Friday, September 21, 2001 11:19 AM
Greetings,
I would like for people here to discuss the impact Fred Glaysher has created
by
his efforts in informing the public of certain elements within the bahai faith
he believes have twisted and perverted its teachings. From my perspective,
I
have seen that Fred' website and of course the creation of alt.religion.bahai
and talk.religion.bahai has brought in a new age in the bahai faith. For
the
first time I believe in the history of the bahai faith, the bahai faith is
being critically reviewed in a forum (the Internet) where there is basically no
control. This created more dissenting voices and further insight into the
bahai faith as well as the lives of bahais and ex-bahais.
I personally believe that what Fred has done will have long term
ramifications
and will even cause a revolution of change or at least widespread awareness of
many issues in the bahai faith that will be subject to criticism and attempts
to rectify it.
I would like to thank Fred for providing and advocating forums where
knowledge
about certain opinions and interpretation of the bahai faith are available and
where people who are critical, whether they be bahai or not, can voice their
sentiments without free of being censored.
Mahdi Muhammad
http://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.htmlFrom: "Dermod Ryder"
<Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:57 PM
Dave,
Before coming to the Internet I thought that I was the only one in the world
who saw the potential for and actual corruption within the AO. The first
site I found on the Internet was Fred's. you cannot imagine the reaction
when I found I was not alone. I think that anybody with an enquiring mind
is bound to have second thoughts about the platitudes of the AO after he has
seen Fred's site and explored the many links - especially that of a certain
Professor of History.
We all know that you think the AO is just wonderful. Fortunately not
everybody is like you!
Dermod.
"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109211315.ab77b7f@posting.google.com...
> The internet is rapidly acquiring the reputation for being a very
> unreliable source of information. Quantity can not substitute for
> quality. You can find every shade of opinion on the net. That
does
> not make them all valid.
>
> I have sent several seekers to Fred's site. They read it and walked
> away with a bad taste in their mouth. Not about the Baha'i Faith but
> about Fred. They have seen the Baha'i Community close up and none of
> the posts on Fred's site related to their experience with the Baha'is.
>
> Fred is a single voice. He is a confrontational voice. His
methods
> have driven many people away from him. So I hope he keeps talking
> because it will only make the experiences people have with the Baha'is
> seem that much better.
>
> Fred's impact in my view has been positive because he is the negative
> to the Baha'i positive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Due Process and Consultation - resources
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 12:29 AM
In fact what really saps the strength of the Faith is not
>The continued assertions by some few
> people of the errant direction taken by the Baha'i Faith in these
newsgroups
but rather the fact that these views are not engaged by the wider community
and discussed in the manner of consultation. The rulers of the Faith have
chosen to try and cut off certain groups and points of view rather than
discuss them.
Without that it might be possible to see some of the persistent
"ownership
of points of view" cease!
Cheers, Randy
--
Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CS6v7.11600$SO.2080787@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> A couple of days ago I quoted some passages from Stars of the West
> concerning this very issue. The writings clearly demonstrate that even if
> you're right, if you dispute and persist in retaining ownerhsip of your
own,
> personal point of view, you're wrong. The continued assertions by
some
few
> people of the errant direction taken by the Baha'i Faith in these
newsgroups
> is an onslaught on the very unity that this Faith is designed to generate.
>
> It might be instructive to look at a logic string, if that is the correct
> term, starting with Baha'u'llah, to 'Abdu'l-Baha', to Shoghi Effendi. The
> goal of unity overrides all other principles, no matter how compelling
they
> might initially appear.
>
> Baha'is must deepen on the process of consultation, for it is the only
> process by which that unity can be attained. Violation of its principles,
no
> matter how nobly that violation is couched, nor how elegantly that
deviation
> defended, leads us (back) into division.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:sm0v7.254$E51.58521@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > Who decides what is what? Cultural differences anyone?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cSUu7.8777$SO.1627964@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > > Arguing is itself a significant problem, and not part of
consultation.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
From: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:28 PM
Dave Fiorito wrote:
>
> Karen,
>
> > > That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a
line
> > > between voicing an opinion and calling for others to accept that
> > > opinion as the truth. It is a line that should not be
crossed.>>
> >
> > And exactly how is a person supposed to know where that line is?
That's why
> > I find the situation so unjust. I don't approve of them pouncing
on people
> > because of their opinions, but if they are going to do that, they at
least
> > ought to be clear about what opinions are banned.
>
> Opinions are not banned. Methods of expressing an opinion that cause
> disunity or the undrmining of the AO is the problem.
I am sorry Dave, but it is not necessary, as others seem to be doing, to
defend whether they are on one side or the other of some imaginary line.
It is _you_ and the unreflective persons in the administrative order,
who "just don't get it": If you don't like what someone says, _that is
just too bad_! Go and say some prayers until you learn the skills
necessary to deal with living in the human race. "From the clash of
differing opinions" comes the spark of truth. From the stimulation of
hearing others of differing views trying to convince us - Yes! Trying to
convince us they are right! - it is from that challenge that we
ourselves hone our own thinking, discover our own oversights, and come
to a better understanding of reality.
Now, your big, big problem in the various questions discussed commonly
here is, to put it bluntly, that the UHJ is wrong and its critics
(excepting one particular person) are mostly right - to the nearest
one-sentence approximation. Therefore any reasonable attempt to provide
evidence in support of any of the usual criticisms will naturally sound
like an overwhelming argument and, if one has a religious mind-block
that prevents one accepting the clear consequences of the evidence, then
it will of course sound like 'disunity' and 'undermining'. The truth is
the truth, though, so the more you push this barrow the sooner the
wheels will fall off.
In case you are wondering what I mean by 'the critics are right', here
is a short list of some points that come to mind as I write this over a
quick tea break. I regard the following as proven beyond reasonable
doubt:
1. The NZ NSA lied about Alison Marshall being 'counselled', and the UHJ
has, culpably and dishonestly, never corrected the lie.
2. There are widespread problems in the Baha'i administration in the
USA, and a great many heavy-handed outrages contrary to the fundamental
principles of unity have occurred, such as the denunciation of the
Dialogue magazine and the inquisition of Juan Cole. The UHJ is curiously
inactive in ever bringing any of this activity to heel.
3. By heavy-handed authoritarian tactics, the UHJ has brought continuing
criticism upon itself that is surely much worse than the original
problems; I am thinking of the various carpetings and, worse, the
expulsions from the Faith for such trivial reasons as Michael thinking
(like most Baha'is, incidentally, but saying so just a bit more
vociferously) that women should serve on the UHJ.
4. The scope of freedom of thought, belief, and expression within the
Baha'i Faith has been narrowed tragically from the wide, generous
horizons envisioned by Baha'u'llah, until the modern typical believer is
scared of his own shadow, always careful to 'vet' every comment in case
it offends some dictum from on high. The very notion that others'
comments have to conform to some standard that the AO is authorised to
lay down as to 'tone' and 'methods of expression' is contrary to
Baha'u'llah's clear teachings regarding freedom of speech. Yes,
Baha'u'llah gives us a lot of guidance as to how to speak wisely, but
that guidance does not constitute a right for _someone else_ to vet the
contents or style of any person's speech.
So, Dave, a good person like you will sooner or later run into this
conundrum. On the one hand you see and are inspired by the wonderful
truths in Baha'u'llah's revelation, but on the other, you have no good
arguments to offer to defend the current-day administrators who run the
religion. Therefore you fall back on inspecting people's 'tone of
voice', or their 'method of expression', or some such irrelevancy. That
sidetrack will only take you so far, and one day you will have to face
the actual problem. When you do, you will have a choice of being true to
reality, or taking the path of least resistance by rationalising the
wrongs that have been publicised here. If you take the latter path, you
will destroy your own integrity. You might not know you have done so,
but everything you think or do from them on will be compromised by the
built-in paradox in your own soul. If, however, you take the former
path, then expect life to be hard: for a start, the current problems
will be a severe challenge to your faith in Baha'u'llah and, perhaps,
even in God. But you will be a whole person, your mind will be sound,
and you will have grace in God, which, eventually, will result in the
real answer to every question, the true answer that wipes away every
tear, being given unto you.
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Morals of a Mole
Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:07 AM
Dear Lady,
Nima wrote about she who is variously known and described, few of which
comments are complimentary: -
>Btw, Susan,
>speaking of hypocrisy. You really think I >believed that your mole on
>Zuhur19 was actually Cal Rollins?? Good >attempt at obfuscation, babe
Should not the world know, or at least the honourable members of these
august fora, that she who is amongst the most vociferous in condemning the
forwarding of private correspondence, does not fail to stoop to the same
underhand stratagem when it serves her own purpose. Last week we had the
spectacle of her publishing a private letter which had been sent to her by
Cal Rollins. What we did not have was the explanation that this had been
sent to her by mistake and that Cal had written to her, on realising that a
mistake had been made, asking her to disregard the letter sent. The dear
lady being of a dishonourable nature and finding the gossip contained in the
same letter, "too too delicious" and irresistible therefore ignored
this
message and went ahead and published, thinking thereby that she had exposed
the secret of Al Marbig, the evil genius behind Brave New World and,
incidentally, put one over on Mr Mahdi, never mind enhancing her own
reputation and electoral prospects in the dreadful AO of the cult to which
she has the misfortune to belong.
The dear lady also omitted to inform the honourable members that the said
letter had been a part of an operation to expose her "mole" on Zuhur
19. As
I made clear to her in private correspondence this had been "bait" and
like
all "bait" had to be attractive - in this case, there was more than a
semblance of truth behind the letter. I had indeed been a part of the
creation of BNW in 1994 (along with others) in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore what had appeared in the original appeared, 6 years later
online, unaltered in substance.
Cal had been asked to forward this letter to Zuhur - instead he forwarded it
to some of the members and, inadvertently, had included the dear lady in
this. The message was intended to be picked up by the dear lady's mole and
utilised by her, to prove that she had a mole there and to identify that
mole. Both objectives were achieved.
Whilst the dear lady might have gotten away with utilising the letter sent
to her by Cal, such is her incompetence that she also quoted verbatim from a
post only made to Zuhur. Her intent was of course to place the blame on
Cal, whilst, of course proffering no proof of this by forwarding the message
received from him enclosing the relevant post. To do so would, she thought
not be necessary. Sufficient that Cal would get the blame, be expelled but
her "mole" would still be safe in place and able to continue to feed
the
dear lady, or "M" as she prefers to be known, the delicious little
titbits
of gossip that are her spiritual sustenance and modus operandi.
Sadly this didn't work - make no mistake, dear lady, your "mole"
is known
and has two options - to heed my advice and quietly unsubscribe from Zuhur
OR be named on this forum. Now, being a particularly vindictive person,
with somewhat of a sense of good theatre, I am not going to come straight
out and name your mole. I think it would be much more fun if we did it bit
by bit, clue by clue. This, of course, gives you the chance, if the clues
are wrong and indicate an innocent person, to opt for the sake of justice to
publish the post from Cal in which he leaked the information from Zuhur to
you. I don't expect you to do that of course - right or wrong, you will
remain silent. If I get it right, the "mole" is expendable -
you'll look
for another one. If I get it wrong - the innocent person is expendable to
protect your "mole." Do, of course, remember dear lady that you
gave me the
information in the first place - like the fact that the "mole" is a
"frilly," of the female gender as, naturellement, you are yourself!
As ever,
Dermod.
From: <almarbig@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Morals of a Mole
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:17 PM
The only reason that my name cropped up was because you effectively
said it Nima. You did everything but say my name, right from the
moment you said (on public newsgroups) I wasn’t Iranian and then
dropped every hint under the sun so that I would be revealed. I
finally owned up to put at end to the blasted speculation. Two people
were entrusted with a confidence and you both dropped me in it, the
minute it suited you. I’m sorry that the Baha’is started
persecuting “innocent” people so that the “guilty” person would stand
up - that’s pretty poor, not to mention totally unbecoming a group that
is supposed to be divinely guided - but if you hadn’t have known who I
was, then you wouldn’t have had the ability to reveal it so that you
could come up trumps over Mahdi and the rest. Knowledge is power, and
you had the knowledge Nima.
I do not believe that BNW is the reason why the Australian Baha’is are
after you, (not that I agree with the Australian NSA for what it wrote
in the Bulletin), but if it had ever come to court I would *in those
conditions* testify that you didn’t have anything to do with BNW - not
have it bandied about on some newsgroup for your own power trip.
BNW was a satirical magazine. I thought it wasn’t a half bad effort
for a few amateurs. I’m a big fan of Monty Python (BNW didn’t come
anywhere close, of course) and “Life of Brian” is my favourite Python
movie. When I re-read over BNW, I realize that apart from the brouhaha
raised over it, it’s pretty innocent, and it raised some important
issues in a light-hearted way, that hopefully will have made some
people think. For the record, my favourite is the ‘dropping of the
International Library from the Lesser Peace Arc prophecies’ piece
because the pesky Haifan residents won’t give up their homes.
At the end of the day, one of the list members had it right when they
pointed out that satirical material like this is catharctic for ex-
members. It was for me. I think I’ve finally gotten it into my
head
that when I have anything to do with ‘Baha’i’, it only results in me
getting spiritually bogged down. I shouldn’t have done BNW, not
because it’s uncomfortable for the Baha’i organization, but because I’m
not a part of the Baha’i world.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think some individual Baha’is that I have
come across have been wonderful people. More power to them. (There
are, even, a few floating around on the internet, a rare species
indeed.) However, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the official Baha’i
organization will fall on its own merits because it shows all the
classic symptoms of a movement that has become a religious Amway
clone. M. Scott Peck was right when he said that God doesn’t reside
inside organizations. The Official Baha’i FaithTM fails all the tests
of what marks a spiritually nourishing community: it is closed and
exclusive; it sees enemies in an us/them world; it is not a group of
all leaders; it is firmly entrenched in hierarchy; it is not a safe
place for disarmament; it doesn’t tolerate natural clashes of opinion;
it doesn’t assess the state of its own health in admitting to
weaknesses; it doesn’t have joy.
On another side of things, the Talisman and Zuhur lists produce the
same actions but do it in reverse. They see the “us/them” world from
the other side of the Baha’i coin.
It appears that the Baha’i religion would seem to produce individuals
who aren’t committed to basic ethics and morals – myself I sadly
conclude as well. I got a bit *too* much fun out of producing BNW and
I am sorry if I have contributed to harming anyone’s spiritual growth.
I freely admit, my time would have better been spent in prayer and
consolidating my Muslim faith. I have not been a good apologist for
Islam.
I took BNW off, finally, because I came to the conclusion that God was
hitting me over the head with the message that it wasn’t good for me to
be involved in anything Baha’i: be it the “official” version of it, or
the “liberaldissident” lists. My being outed was the straw that broke
the proverbial.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/From: "Jenifer Tidwell" <jtidwell@animato.arlington.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA.
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:18 AM
My goodness. I posted this letter a year and a half ago, and I'm
shocked -- shocked! -- that it took Fred this long to find it. :-)
(Fred, I'm sorry I didn't tell you about it earlier. I remember you
encouraged me to post it publicly back when I wrote it, but I wasn't
ready to do so then. It took me a lot of time to get to that point,
and when I did post it, I did so quietly.)
In the past couple of days, your public discussions and private
letters have touched me deeply. Thank you, everyone, for your
support, love, and willingness to discuss these issues. Karen, it
sounds like you and I really are on the same wavelength; I agree with
much of what you say. Susan, your wisdom is welcomed (though I
haven't gotten back to you yet). And thank you, both Susan and
Abelard, for not writing me off. :-)
In private email, someone asked me for a followup: What happened
as a result of that letter, and what has it been like since I left?
First, the individuals in my local community handled the situation
very well. I have seen them occasionally in the time since I left,
such as at a town interfaith celebration, and we remain on very good
terms, just like old friends ought to be! One of them has since had
trouble with the Faith and spoke to me about it -- I'm afraid I wasn't
of much help to him, but apparently he's been dealing with some of
the same issues, and maybe my letter helped him work them out.
I have not encountered any hostility. None. That speaks so well
of
the Baha'is, doesn't it?
On the other hand, no institution has responded to any of my specific
points. In fact, National never send me any acknowledgement of the
letter at all (though the local LSA did) -- I just stopped receiving
mail from them, and that was that. Odd, but typical, I thought:
wonderful individuals and community, yet unresponsive institutions.
So... where am I now?
My husband and I both attend the church I spoke of in the 1999 letter,
and we've been active members since we started. It's a very liberal
place, with a female priest (who is a lesbian, by the way), lots of
strong women and young families and diverse ethnicities in the
congregation, plenty of opportunities for participation and service,
openness about the community's strengths and weaknesses, and plenty of
art and music (both of which I help create).
I am still learning so much about the Christian revelation that it
sometimes makes my head spin. One of our parishioners is a Harvard
professor who studies the Gospel of Mary. (Did you know that existed?
Along with the Gospel of Thomas, and other non-canonical books.
Fascinating stuff.) And our priest finds interpretations of old,
familiar stories that stand the traditional meanings on their heads.
It's confusing, and it's wonderful.
Among this church's many blessings is the fact that my husband and I
are both in the same faith community! I had missed that terribly when
I was a Baha'i and he wasn't. Our marriage was already good, but I
think this has made it even better. Likewise, I have become closer
to my Episcopal parents, simply because we have more in common to
talk about now.
Another blessing is the new freedoms I have. For instance, I no
longer feel any hesitation about taking sides on political issues.
In fact, I feel now that if we *don't* take part in the political
process -- both individually and corporately -- we're not living up to
our responsibility to do God's work in this world. (I'm talking more
about social justice, peace, and environmental issues than the nastier
right-wing stuff, don't worry. But, ironically, I understand the
religious right better now.)
Oh -- and good wine tastes fabulous. In moderation, of course. :-)
Talking to friends and family about religious issues is easier for
me, now that I'm not under pressure to teach. It comes much more
naturally. Funny how that works.
The rituals that we go through every week at church still work for me.
They are rock-solid, ever-changing, comforting, disquieting, and
everything else I said in my original letter.
I believe (as I think I always have) that gay and lesbian couples are
wonderful, strong families that should be given all the love and
support they deserve. There are several at our church, including
couples with adopted children. It would be utterly inhumane to tell
these couples and families that their existence is morally wrong.
Or to prevent them from forming in the first place.
I have been better able to reconcile my love of the outdoors with
Christian theology than with Baha'i theology. I won't go into the
details of that here, but I find God's Word written into the woods,
rock, snow, and mountains as much as it is written into Revelation.
That's a personal thing; I don't doubt there are Baha'is who feel the
same way.
I don't read the Writings that often anymore, though occasionally, in
meditative moments, the daily obligatory prayer comes unbidden.
(Christian prayers do, too, sometimes.) Now that I think about it, I
do miss the Writings. But I can't read them in quite the same way now
that I used to. Nevertheless, I am willing to believe I was wrong
about them having "pat answers for everything," and I'm reading this
netnews discussion with eagerness...
Finally, let me share a story with you. Last summer, having been out
of the Faith for a long time, my husband and I were driving up the
Maine coast near Kittery on a sunny afternoon. I suggested we take a
certain back road instead of the main highway, just because it looked
interesting. As we drove down the road, it began to look familiar.
Part of me gradually became aware of why. I was not surprised when
we saw the sign for Greenacre finally appear before us.
"Let's go in," I suggested. I expected that there would be
some
weekend program going on, but I wanted to see the buildings again,
having not been there in many years. As soon as we parked the car, we
saw people we knew! And in the inn, more old friends! We hung out
talking with them for a while, then wandered around the grounds,
soaking up the Maine sunlight. I swear I have never seen Greenacre
that beautiful. It was one of those mysterious, perfect events that
could never have been planned.
I'm not sure what God was trying to tell me that day. It might have
been, "Come back to the Faith," but it might also have been,
"It's OK
to be where you are. This Faith will always be here if you need it,
even if you remain outside it for a while."
Someday I'll know.
God bless all of you who seek to understand.
- Jenifer Tidwell
P.S. Please, continue the discussion; this is fascinating!
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: quastion about conflicts among Bahais
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 5:20 PM
Paul
You've hit the nail on the head with your comment below. The official
"one
and only" Baha'i Faith only accepts people who are willing to enroll with
them and then be willing to forever turn off their brains from thinking or
criticizing anything or anyone in the Organization for the rest of their
lives.
Some on this NG repeat over and over that only those who maintain absolute
obedience to the Organization are really to be considered Baha'is. Any one
who publicly criticizes a decision or an act of this Organization faces
delisting or shunning. There are no other choices as far as the
Organization goes.
Cheers, Randy
--
Paul Hammond <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3a746fd2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> Anyway, I think the problem with Roger's view, above, is that
> it is tantamount to defining the problem out of existence. In this
> case, the definition of a Baha'i would be of a person who is
> registered with the Baha'i organisations - which certainly makes
> sense legally, and has scriptural basis (Baha'u'llah explicitly disallowed
> the formation of rival sects in this age of increasing unity).
> But, someone who stays in the organisation, is
> virtually by definition not going to be someone who argues against
> the present direction of the organisation. This seems a little
> unfair to the people who have dropped/been pushed out.
>
> Hmm. Maybe I haven't expressed that quite clearly. Certainly,
> it is possible to remain a member of an organisation, and attempt
> to change its direction from within. Abdu'l Baha, Baha'u'llah's son
> and appointed successor, is often quoted as saying that the
> spark of truth only emerges from the clash of differing opinions,
> so criticism within the Faith should be possible.
>
> All I am saying is that some people who still consider themselves
> to be Baha'is have found themselves unable to remain members
> of the Faith (or in a small number of cases have been expelled
> against their will).
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Paul
>
>
From: "Ian McCarthy" <ianmcca@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Re: That may be the road of becoming a Real Baha'i.
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:10 PM
"Susan Maneck " wrote
There was no sentence. Otherwise, she would have either lost her
administrative
rights or have been declared a Covenant breaker. It was instead decided that
she did not sufficiently meet the qualifications of membership within the
Baha'i community to be held responsible for her actions, in that sense.
An iron boot in a velvet slipper! She was kicked out after many years in the
community and despite a deep faith in its founder! Dehumanised, defined as
mentally unbalanced, "not responsible for her actions"! Not obedient
enough
to be a Baha'i because obedience is all, and free thought is by definition
dangerous nonsense.
But this is wrong, Susan, it must be wrong. What kind of a community are you
trying to create if there's no room in it for different points of view?
Can't you see it's no way to unite the world? There are few enough people
becoming Bahai's as it is, without kicking the best of them out for speaking
their minds. The only reason I haven't given up altogether on the Baha'i
Faith and gone off in a huff is because of the existence of a few sensitive
and spiritually awakened souls who have made me see the finer side of the
Faith when I was washed up on the shore of Zuhur Island after a tempest out
in the sea of TRB. And these are the people who have been marginalised and
excluded by you and your heavy friends, these castaways, flotsam and jetsam
of the New World Order. You and your friends have built the walls, you have
shown them to the door, you have made them walk the plank. You have made
enemies of them and thus you have created another schism in the world, if
not yet
officially in the Faith, which is hardly important in comparison.
But we should all be together on this roller coaster ride to the Kingdom of
Heaven.
Aren't there already enough selfish people around without creating divisions
among (slightly more) spiritual
souls and world servers? Why don't you say you're sorry and let them back
into your heart and your Faith? Indeed, why don't we all stop for a moment
and give
thanks for the richness of our diversity and the learning that it brings?
When are we going to stop dividing the world into Them and Us?
Janji
----------------------------------------------------
'And as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan's spell...'
From: <starjo8853@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Censorship foiled?
Date: Saturday, February 03, 2001 4:43 AM
Yes Fred I was behind you when you went for this unmoderated list
because I knew how the moderators thought and what their limited
guidelines were for presenting ONLY PARTY LINE THOUGHT....and I think
it is vital to have true feelings, thought, and knowledge shared. You
are a *hero upon hero's* to me in this respect. (You can see how awful
I felt when T2 came under the same kind of moderation as SRB - I gave
it a try but the same ugly pattern quickly emerged with specific
culling orders put out on me because I would not let the INEQUALITY OF
WOMEN issue drop as the top guns ordered). Of course trb attracted the
filabustering scoundrals paid by the AO to try and distroy you and it
by attacking posts and posters (as you know they still live here - but
the job pays). Interesting the way the T2 girls are palsying up with
the fundies here when they had no regard for them elsewhere. Hypocrites
everywhere.....not a favorite with Baha'u'llah but they don't seem to
care.
Star*
In article <Z_De6.273015$hD4.66223627@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
"Patrick Henry" <patrick_Henry@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Star,
>
> I understand your experience because I've witnessed
> Juan, Susan, and other liberals and fundamentalists, in and
> out of the faith, in and out of the academic world, silence
> people for opinions they really don't want to have heard.
> Such experiences were crucial to why I fought for years
> to help create talk.religion.bahai and why I believe it
> is still the only forum in existence on the bahai faith that
> is not in effect censored at times in one way or another.
>
> Fred
>
> <starjo8853@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:95eeas$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Fred it is even worse than just censorship as the end result was
> > *shunning* a practice the people on the list say they don't
do....but
> > when you don't have a voice you are shunned. BTW Juan is always
saying
> > the Faith is founded in Islamic verities as a base and my post
simply
> > supported the Iranian influence in the Faith. I suppose Milissa
wants
> > to say the Faith has no Iranian influence ---hahahahahaaa that is
plain
> > lying. Why should Iranian Baha'is feel slurred to know that they
> > largely influence the Faith praytell? Where WAS Milissa really
coming
> > from - the same place as her sister susan (of course milissa isn't
> > enrolled anymore so they may not be sisters).
> >
> > Thank you for understanding what I ran into in a place that I
thought
> > was free of that kind of behaviour towards its members. This is not
to
> > say that I did not benefit from the list - because I did. It was
> > educational and inconclasting of myths at times...till the killer
> > spirit of moderation showed its ugly side.
> >
> >
> > In article <37he6.270658$hD4.65500175@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
> > "Patrick Henry" <patrick_Hen |