From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Sunday, January 06, 2002 5:13 PM > Cynicism can be a lonely craft.<< Thank you, Jay, but I'm far from alone, nor am I really all that cynical. While I was being flippant, the lack of protection for Baha'is accused of wrongdoing is a real and serious problem within the community. Again and again, I hear from people who try to appeal unjust decisions, only to have the NSA take virtually forever to deal with it, or to rely on the reports of the very local officials being complained about as a basis for the decision. I know of cases where appeal letters themselves were held against those complaining of injustice, because of their negative tone. How the hell do you make a complaint without sounding negative? All the protections are for institutions; there are none for individuals. It is always assumed that if an individual has trouble with the system, it is *his* fault. The Administrative Faith claims to love mankind, but they don't give a damn about people. Love, Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:37 AM > Rick is not an Administration, he is an individual, with experience and > knowledge and devotion to his chosen Faith. You utilize labels to categorize > people, victims over here, fundies over there. But, there is just you and me > and Rick and Pat. You can talk to Rick and Robert and Pat, or you can talk > to labels, but I believe you'll find that talking to Rick and Pat and Robert > will gain you more than talking to your labels. > Friends for example. People who would like to love you. Dear Robert, If you've followed my posts for very long, Robert, you ought to know that I don't talk to just labels. I've spent a lot of time here talking to Dave, and Susan, and other defenders of the administration. But I don't believe I've ever yet run into a human being quite as hard as Rick is. It's like he's carved from cold, white Haifa marble with no heart in him at all. I believe that you are sincere, but I don't believe for one fraction of a second that Rick "would like to love" me. And I meant what I said earlier -- arguing here about this stuff is not the most important thing I do, and right now I don't very much feel like it's worth the aggravation. You speak of love, Robert -- love is a verb, an action, what you do. There are way too many Baha'is who have been treated in a much less than loving way by their community, and if they complain about it, then it is seen as all their fault. The reactions I get when I tell their stories are so predictable that it's hardly even worth going down that road anymore. What it boils down to is that the Baha'i community is willing to throw them in the trash, and I'd rather spend my time helping them out. And when my own resources are stretched, you are more likely to see short, snippy answers from me than long, thought-out ones. Love, Karen > > Robert A. Little > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u3kk8ur4ich164@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > As I've said before, I have no idea how those guys think -- I don't > > > > understand why they've done the cracking down they've already done. > > > > > > Perhaps if you spent more time reading and digesting what they've > actually > > > said and less time trying to read between the lines, it will make much > > more > > > sense.<< > > > > And just what the hell does that mean? > > > > > > > > > If > > > > their concern is criticism in liberal Baha'i cyberspace, that has not > > > > stopped, so I think the likelihood is that they will still continue to > > > take > > > > somebody out once in a while, and it has been two years since they > > booted > > > > Alison. > > > > > > And, if their concern is not about criticism in "liberal Baha'i > > cyberspace," > > > what, then, might we conclude?<< > > > > That they're a pack of arbitrary tyrants. > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:10 AM > Every single Baha'i has been treated unjustly at some point or another(s), > unless the ink is still wet on their declaration card. This is, or ought to > be understood by all human beings, not only all Baha'is. What also ought to > be understood is that these abrasions we receive - and cause - can lead to a > character that reflects like a mirror the attributes and virtues of God.<< Robert, I don't think anyone is saying that one should not put up with minor annoyances. Sure, anyone who has been in the Baha'i community for very long faces some frustrations and disappointments, but when people are pushed past the threshold of endurance, they are still blamed. You can be in the Faith a lifetime, serve it well, and put up with the injustices just like you said, but when the day comes when that proverbial straw breaks your back, you will still be blamed by your fellow believers for not being patient, for not being forgiving, for not being able to take even more. Is this a faith for all humanity, or is it a spiritual elite for a chosen few? Because if Baha'u'llah's message is for all mankind, then the Baha'i community needs to adapt and make allowances for human weaknesses. > > If you consider people like Susan "defenders of the administration" you > have then mentally separated in your mind what Baha'u'llah said must not be > divided. By definition, Baha'is are followers of Baha'u'llah, and that means > adherents to all He has revealed. To love Baha'u'llah is to love His Faith. > They must not be separated, He says.<< Baha'u'llah didn't say that; Shoghi Effendi did. And when given a choice between the principles that Baha'u'llah taught, and what the administration says is right, I will choose Baha'u'llah every time. But you know this, Robert. I have made no secret of saying that I am an unenrolled Baha'i -- a believer in Baha'u'llah who is not a member of the administration as a matter of conscience. Where else can a believer go, if the administration gives them no option? Alison is a devoted lover of Baha'u'llah, an unenrolled Baha'i made so because the UHJ disenrolled her. *They* are the ones who did the separating in that case. Love, Karen https://groups.yahoo.com/group/unenrolledbahai From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:54 PM www.bahai-faith.tk > > Bear in mind that while Susan may be an Associate Professor > of History (of Basket Weaving) in the little known Jackson > State University, she neither a Professor nor an expert in > religious scriptures, let alone the Baha'i Faith. So, do > not take everything she cites as valid facts. Thank you, JKA, but that shot was unnecessary. I've had many discussions with Susan online, and have already a pretty good idea about her level of expertise. Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020116014526.25538.00002687@mb-fc.aol.com... > > > >Well, exactly whose understanding did Baha'u'llah instruct us to turn to, > >Karen? > > Uh, Rick. There can be two very different answers to that question. He tells us > to turn towards 'Abdu'l-Baha but He also says to see with our own eyes and not > through the eyes of another. > Not only that, but it is possible for understandings to differ over what 'Abdu'l-Baha' said. And, yes, Rick, I am aware that Baha'u'llah told us to turn to 'Abdu'l-Baha. Karen > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > Robert, I think one has to make a distinction between moral injunctions that tell us how we ought to behave, and laws that can be enforced by punishment. For example, the Bab prohibit both causing hurt to anyone (or you'd have to pay a fine), and questioning "He Whom God Shall Make Manifest". Baha'u'llah abrogated both of these laws, leaving the former as a moral injunction binding on a person's conscience, and simply admonishing that a person should "ask what they need to ask", but not to get ridiculous about it. (Can't remember the exact quote.) It is noteworthy that both of these laws have to do with individual expression. Yes, obedience to the institutions is enjoined, and so also is individual free expression. How does one reconcile the two when the Institutions seems bent on violating that latter principle? I see "obedience" to the House of Justice as primarily one of law -- i.e. it is supposed to legislate, if it actually passed a law concerning some matter, then Baha'is are obligated to obey it. The actions of the House interfering with free expression are reactive, and not law-based at all. The people at Dialogue magazine never published an article that didn't go through the review system. They were punished simply for writing, and submitting to review an article concerning reform. This is not an act against Baha'i law. The actions of the NSA and UHJ in this seem quite arbitrary and capricious. They didn't like the magazine so they squashed it. Are believers just supposed to guess ahead of time what they won't like? Were the participants on Talisman supposed to just guess that writing posts that they don't like is punishable? That isn't against Baha'i law, either. Where is the line between honest discussion of community issues and punishable "backbiting" and "criticism"? Are we just supposed to paste a smile on our faces pretend in public that all is well in the Baha'i community? I find Baha'u'llah's Writings to be highly individualistic in nature, especially where truth-seeking and conscience are concerned. I'll get you quotes later if I have time. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Robert Little wrote in message news:uLS08.21479$ql6.5553399@typhoon.socal.rr.com... > Well, what does Baha'u'llah write concerning the relationship of Baha'is to > His Universal House of Justice? Does "equally valid opinions" cover such a > wide range of meaning as to include backbiting either the institution or its > members, or the absolute freedom to obey it or not? > > Does the individual human conscience reign supreme? What does Baha'u'llah > write concerning conscience? > > Robert A. Little > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u46vu2jgd9hl39@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > -- > > www.bahai-faith.tk > > > > > > Why in your opinion would Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have appointed > > > authoritative interpreters if they wanted anything to go? In fact > > Baha'u'llah > > > didn't think real highly about those who wished to depart from the > > 'obvious > > > meaning' of a text, especially in matters of law. << > > > > I would say Susan, that *only* applied in matters of law. Baha'u'llah > > Himself hardly looked only at the obvious meaning of the Qur'an! I think > > there's an instance here of where the golden mean again applies. In the > > Lawh-i-Tav'il He condemns both extremes. Law should not be interpreted > away; > > likewise, other aspects of scripture can have a variety of meanings which > > individuals are free to interpret according to their understanding. > > > > Love, Karen > > > > > > warmest, Susan > > > Susan Maneck > > > Associate Professor of History > > > Jackson State University > > > > > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no > > time > > > left to start again . . " > > > Don McLean's American Pie > > > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > > > > > > > www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020114160738.02168.00002071@mb-dh.aol.com... > > > >Isn't the real issue that the institutions can't treat people this way and > >still maintain the Baha'i Faith's reputation as a liberal religion? > > Dear Karen, > > I don't think the Institutions have any obligation to maintain our reputation > as 'liberal' religion.<< I didn't say they had an *obligation* to do that -- but I think that's what they want. After all, tell people that the Baha'i Faith is all about obedience to central authority, and that you have to sell your right to free expression down the river, you aren't going to have too many takers. In fact, I talk to people all the time who are still full of rage about the way they've been ripped off -- they come into the Faith full of idealism about the oneness of mankind, and in love with the beauty of the Writings, only to find that being a Baha'i means slavish loyalty to a stutifying bureaucracy. By all means, let them be honest about not being a tolerant, open, and progressive religion. They won't have many takers that way, but at least they won't be breaking so many hearts, like they do by presenting the Faith as liberal. In fact, if they want to chase even more people away, people who are already within the Faith, they can respond to recent controversies by endless harping on the Covenant. I hear that something of the kind is happening in New Zealand. Then, after you weed out all the freethinking and spiritual people, you guys can be completely happy, just a tiny righteous remnant, pure and loyal. It would be making a mockery of everything Baha'u'llah, taught, but hey, you can't have everything. Their obligation is to uphold the Teachings, whether > they are conceived of as liberal or conservative.<< Uh-huh. And they're doing it so well, too. > > >Two > >people investigated in the Talisman crackdown insisted that any meeting be > >tape-recorded -- interestingly enough, both people had been through the > >Dialogue episode and knew what they were in for if they were interrogated. > > And what would they be in for? They may not have liked the way the earlier > interrogation was handled but to my knowledge there is nothing that came from > that interrogation that was twisted or misused.<< That's not what Steve Scholl says. In Crisis of Faith he specifically says that their words were twisted and misused. Nothing that they would have > required a record for in order to defend themselves from false charges. That > would be the only legitimate reason to ask for such a meeting to be taped.<< Oh, yeah. God forbid they have the means to defend themselves from false charges. > > Sounds like what you are really saying is that they wanted to use such a > recording as possible ammunition against the Institutions, much as Juan > attempted to use the tape of the travel agent phone conversation with the NSA. <<< As far as I know, Birkland investigated six Talisman posters in the spring of 1996. Of those six, four of them have publicly stated that they were threatened with being named covenant-breakers, the worst possible sanction that could befall a Baha'i, which is supposed to carry a heavy spiritual penalty. A fifth posted a letter to the web that contained the warning that his course of actions would bring him "into direct conflict with the Covenant." and if that *doesn't* mean that he would be declared a covenant-breaker, I'd sure like to know what it *does* mean. That these people were threatened with excommunication and shunning has been denied by almost every defender of the administration I've run across. *That's* why you need a tape recorder. > > >Birkland, of course, refused. He wrote letters to two Talisman posters that > >ended up on the web. Looks very bad, doesn't it? > > And that's what would have been done with the tapes, right?<< They would have proven precisely what was said in those interviews. Yes, they would have been used publicly -- they deserve to be embarrassed for doing what they did. Of course, Birkland probably never would have threatened them had a tape recorder been running, so the whole thing's a non-starter. You don't get to threaten people if you know there will be proof that you did so. In the case of > Birkland's letter Juan originally tampered with the text he posted, taking out > a key passage which without which the intent of that letter could be completely > distorted. << He protected the identity of the recipient. Including the fact that the recipient of that letter was also the author of the Majnun post effectively identifies him to anyone who is even halfway awake in Baha'i cyberspace, whether they were ever on Talisman-1 or not. > > >Who cares about justice, as long as we can keep it secret? > > It is not an issue of keeping it secret. It is an issue of not letting such > materials be manipulated in this way. << On the contrary, I think they want plausible deniability. "Oh, no, no one was ever threatened. They all left of their own free will and are lying about being threatened. There's no proof at all to back up what they're saying." As I said, no one *would* have been threatened if the Counsellor knew the conversation was going to be tape-recorded. And it was his mission to threaten them, so he couldn't accept that as a condition. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk > > Why in your opinion would Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have appointed > authoritative interpreters if they wanted anything to go? In fact Baha'u'llah > didn't think real highly about those who wished to depart from the 'obvious > meaning' of a text, especially in matters of law. << I would say Susan, that *only* applied in matters of law. Baha'u'llah Himself hardly looked only at the obvious meaning of the Qur'an! I think there's an instance here of where the golden mean again applies. In the Lawh-i-Tav'il He condemns both extremes. Law should not be interpreted away; likewise, other aspects of scripture can have a variety of meanings which individuals are free to interpret according to their understanding. Love, Karen > > warmest, Susan > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020114155145.02168.00002059@mb-dh.aol.com... > >But you are right, Juan never accused the > >> Institution of turning people into roaches all the time he was a Baha'i. > > > >See, I'm lots badder than those guys.:-) > > The difference my dear Karen, is that they were responsible for upholding > Baha'i standards of conduct. You no longer are. << Yeah, I keep forgetting I'm not supposed to be a Baha'i anymore. Must be those prayers I keep saying.:-) Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk > > As you know Juan has a history of omitting whatever is inconvenient as he did > with the Birkland letter and the Aug 3 letter.<< No, what I know is that he was trying to protect the identity of the recipients of both of those letters. I have a hard time seeing how the deletions benefitted Juan personally. In fact, the Aug. 3 letter made a number of very nasty charges about him -- if he had been concerned about what was "incovenient", surely it would have been better not to make those portions of the letter public? Or do you think it's somehow to Juan's benefit to be accused of having a long-running scheme to undermine the institutions, having his faith while an enrolled Baha'i called into question, and deliberately distorting Baha'u'llah's teachings for political purposes? If you want a complete set of > Talisman archives ask Eric Pierce to send you one.<< He's got the whole archive online, but they are in zip files, and I've never been able to get them unzipped. Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 2:17 PM > > >As for "the > >kind of internet postings" she was making, they are on her website and speak > >for themselves. > > I'm thinking more specifically of ones made on Talisman. << Dear Susan, Could be either ones; the House didn't specify. I know you have a specific theory as to what particular "misconception" got Alison nailed, but then, so do a lot of people. I have only my own common sense as to which speculations are more believable than others -- and that is in itself is speculation on my part. Your opinion on this is better than some I've heard, but I wouldn't take it as a "given", either. The point is the House never told Alison. They just held a class, presumably on the Covenant, that she didn't stay even for, and hoped she'd get the hint. The only thing the email they sent around about her said that her "misconceptions" had to do with the "foundations of the administrative order." > > >Perhaps this spring when her case comes to > >court, there will be documentation released on that. > > Not likely. The court case can simply require certain information from the NSA > as I understand it. But it was the House that made this decision and they are > beyond the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts.<< Well, from what I heard there will be documentation released, at least that was turned over to the courts by the NSA. Whether it will shed any light on the reasons for the House's action, I don't know -- you are correct in that New Zealand courts have no power to make the UHJ turn over documents. > > >Michael did know, at least, that there were concerns. He was not told that > >his membership was at risk. > > You're a school teacher, Karen. Do you always have to specify the consequences > of certain behavior before you are allowed to take action? Isn't it sometimes > enough that you told the kid not to do something? << On the contrary, most teachers have a classroom management system that specifies consequences for actions that is quite clearly spelled out. When I walk in as a substitute, the kids know the rules, and the consequences for breaking them, better than I do. I tell the kids I give their regular teacher an honest report of their behavior, which is often enough to make them stop and think about consequences when their teacher gets back. If a child continues to be disruptive, I send him to the office (or detention room, whatever, depending on the school) -- by that time, he's usually had at least one warning, and probably more. Now, in theory, I *could* apply disciplinary measures without without spelling things out clearly, i.e. I have the power and authority to do so, but that's not a good way to manage a classroom. If you want certain behavior either to exist or not exist, then you have to spell it out -- and keep repeating it, usually. > > > poor > >guy's first thought when he was booted was that he hadn't responded to the > >House's last letter quickly enough. > > He did propose that. He also proposed that it was a result of an ongoing debate > he was having with me on Irfan regarding the authority of the Manifestation. > But such decisions are not made that quickly.<< Well, that tells me he was a bit confused about why he got the boot. I know these decisions take a while -- that's why I think we can pretty much discard Alison's book review as a factor -- that the two events happened so close together is coincidental. Or, if anything, her impending disenrollment influenced the censoring of her review. I'd pointed out at the time the > likely problem that he had continued to oppose the House's policies on the > internet after having told his ABM he wouldn't. The subsequent letter to his > wife pretty much confirmed that. << I don't know anything about that agreement, except I've heard you say before that there was one. If there was an agreement, then he shouldn't have broken it, and I will not defend that. However, I don't think she should have extracted such a promise. To me, it's pretty outrageous that we are expected to stifle our opinions for fear of retaliation -- and Michael was not told that there would *be* retaliation. I don't think it particularly out of the way that a Baha'i should be particularly concerned about the equality of women. It is, after all, one of our basic principles. Believing in it does not make a person "not a Baha'i". Believing that the possibility exists that it is possible for the exclusion of women from the UHJ to be reversed does not make one "not a Baha'i" either -- from what I've heard, you once believed that yourself, Susan. Stongly expressing those opinions on newsgroups doesn't make a person "not a Baha'i" -- unless you define being a Baha'i strictly by institutional loyalty and nothing else, which is a real shallow way to view a person's spiritual life, if you ask me. Love, Karen > > Keep in mind that Muhammad Ali, whose rebellion 'Abdu'l-Baha spends much of the > W&T talking about never said that 'Abdu'l-Baha was not the legitimate head of > the Faith. Rather he accused Him of exceeding His power by claiming to be a > Manifestation just as many people today accuse the House of exceeding their > power by supposedly doing things within the sphere of the Guardianship. << The difference betweeen the two situations is that I don't the current one as being quite so clear cut. 'Abdu'l-Baha repeatedly and emphatically denied that he was a Manifestation, and to correct the misconception current in the West that he was the return of Christ. The charge that he claimed to be a Manifestation is very clearly bogus, unless there is something in a letter we haven't seen. But the charge of the UHJ exceeeding their authority comes from the fact that there is no longer a living Guardian to define those spheres -- something which necessarily lies within the realm of interpretation. I'm sure the UHJ tries very hard to stay within what they see as being their sphere, but when people are called on the carpet for having "misconceptions", then some interpreting is inevitably going on. But the point is here that our current situation is fuzzier: What is an interpretation? What is legislation? When is the House infallible and when is it not? Who even defines these things when there is no authorized interpreter around? > > The quotations which I gave you do not really speak of simply repudiating their > legitimacy, do they? Rather they speak of falsely interpreting, opposing, > protesting, deviating, failing to comply, expressing ones own opinions and > convictions, in opposition to House's decrees. << Oh, come, Susan! I know very well the bit about not expressing "opinions" refers to legal rulings by jurists -- that one's in one of your own letters to the House! I suspect "interpretations" is something along the same lines. Just recently I had someone on my list upset about the whole tone of the Will and Testament -- it's harshness. My response to that was that in a very real sense, the W&T was written under emergency conditions -- so that it would be known what to do if the Master were executed. Also, 'Abdu'l-Baha was overturning a provision of scripture here -- i.e. in the Kitab-i-Ahd, Muhammad 'Ali was supposed to follow 'Abdu'l-Baha as leader of the Faith. 'Abdu'l-Baha had to demonstrate in very strong terms that his brother had passed beyond the pale; it was no time to be Mr. Nice Guy. To say that the W&T was intended to prevent Baha'is who are simply expressing their opinions concerning issues in the community contradicts too many other things contained in the Writings. 'Abdu'l-Baha repeatedly expressed approval for liberty and freedom of expression. > > >To say that in public we must always pretend > >to agree with the policy of the current leadership makes of the Faith a > >totalitarian kind of religion, very nearly cult-like, and I don't think > >that's what it was meant to be. > > I don't think we have to pretend to refrain from opposing. But if doing that > makes us totalitarian, isn't it only fair we blame 'Abdu'l-Baha for this rather > than the House? Very good, Susan, you've been trying to hook me with that one recently. What are you trying to do? Convince others I'm a covenant-breaker, or convince me I'm not a Baha'i? I draw a distinction between both 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and what people have made of them. If I blame anyone, I blame Muhammad 'Ali -- his rebellion left this legacy of fear and protection-mindedness in the Faith. > >What I want to see is for people to be left alone, and allowed to > >express their opinions without fear. > > Anyone who wants to be left alone does not blast their opinions all over the > internet, build websites expressing them, run email lists for the purpose of > promulgating them, etc. etc. << Well, people in most religions get to do exactly that. If the UHJ really wants to know how to take the wind out of the sails of the dissidents, then the answer is very simple: Leave them alone. Things were far more polarized after the Talisman crackdown than before -- and the events leading to that had, to some degree, roots in the Dialogue episode. Every time they crack down, punish, throw somebody out, they are only adding fuel to the fire and the critics will become more numerous and more vocal. Without the Talisman crackdown I wouldn't be here; that's a fact. Baha'i liberals aren't created, they are discovered. We spend years believing we belong to an open and progressive faith, and respond with outrage when confronted with the evidence that the Baha'i Faith is anything but. If the UHJ wants that to stop, then *it* has to stop -- it's that simple. Love, Karen > > Dear Karen, > > I thought Alison indicated in the past that she *did* attend that class.<< Dear Susan, There has been some confusion on that point -- what I understood Alison to say was this: There were two meetings in Dunedin. The first was a response to the April 7 letter, where assurances were given that there had been no problems in New Zealand concerning "internal opposition". However, some statements by Steve Marshall led to an NSA investigation of him, something the Marshalls didn't discover until the NZ courts required the NSA to turn in all papers concerning them. While this first meeting was reassuring, the second one was more stern in tone -- this is probably the one aimed particularly at Alison. According to her account, she stayed five minutes, began to feel sick, and left. > > >The only thing the email they sent > >around about her said that her "misconceptions" had to do with the > >"foundations of the administrative order." > > Well her assertions that if the House insisted on certain things they were in > violation of the Covenant would certainly be consistent with that.<< As I said, Susan, it's a better candidate than some explanations I've heard. However, I've only seen one message where Alison ever said anything of the kind. I have not seen evidence that she was saying this "continually", as you have said. Unless the UHJ is booting people out on the basis of one message now, I remain skeptical. My suspicion is that it wasn't a single misconception, but rather a combination of factors that led to the decision. In Michael's case everyone knew what issue got him in trouble, even though the UHJ didn't specify it, because he was known for having a particular thing that was important to him. Alison was a different kind of poster. > > >Well, from what I heard there will be documentation released, at least that > >was turned over to the courts by the NSA. > > Yes, but as I said the decision was made at the World Centre. I'm not sure to > what extent the NSA was even involved, beyond conveying the House's decision.<< I'm not sure, either. We'll both have to wait and see what comes out of all that, won't we? > There is no question that spelling out appropriate behavior and the > institutions do this all the time. The Individual Rights and Freedoms letter > was once such attempt and if I am not mistaken all three of the persons who > were removed from the rolls had read that letter.<< I never found that letter to be all that clear -- and that was true back in 1988, when I first read it, 'way before I ever got on the Internet. And there have been attempts > to provide individual warnings as well. That has not always been successful for > in those cases some individuals rather than heeding such warnings have > presented attempts to make contact and explain matters as harrassement and > persecution.<< Well, then maybe they should quit trying to shut people up. > > But my question to you as a school teacher is how appropriate is it to always > spell out consequences, i.e. issue threats? I realize that the behavior > modification where consequences are clearly spelled out is the going thing, but > I have some questions about it, for while it trains students to measure the > consequences of their acts, it does not train them to do the right thing, > regardless of consequences. << There are actually several schools of thought concerning classroom management -- one of them actually advocates ignoring behavior you don't want to see, and rewarding behavior you do want, with attention. As a practical matter, teachers do what they find works with a particular class -- or sometimes a particular child. I would agree that from a moral standpoint, one would like to see children who internalize the rules of good behavior without fear of consequences. But the aim of classroom management is not character training so much as creating an environment conducive to learning -- the two dovetail at certain points, but are not identical. Actually, the biggest problem teachers have is that there are always some children who don't respond to a reward-and-punishment kind of setup. There are disciplinary systems which do give the child some responsibilty and input -- such as the practice of drawing up behavior contracts. > > It seems to me the only grounds for protest might be is that they were removed > from the rolls when the above passages suggest that the consequence of such > behavior should be expulsion as Covenant breakers. << Well, that's what I always thought -- however, I thought of such opposition in terms, not of disagreement with a current policy, but opposition to the UHJ's overall authority. That is, it is one thing to say that you'd like a certain policy to be different, quite another to say that the UHJ is not the legitimate head of the Faith, that we should have another one. The latter is clearly covenant-breaking. To say that in public we must always pretend to agree with the policy of the current leadership makes of the Faith a totalitarian kind of religion, very nearly cult-like, and I don't think that's what it was meant to be. > > >To me, it's pretty outrageous that we are > >expected to stifle our opinions for fear of retaliation -- and Michael was > >not told that there would *be* retaliation. > > Well, you've got the House behind a rock and a hard place then, don't you. If > they give such a warning it is outrageous. If they don't, it is unfair.<< Between the two choices, I prefer the warning. At least it is honest and upfront. Given > the warnings from 'Abdu'l-Baha which I have given above, it seems to me that > your outrage should be against Him. << 'Abdu'l-Baha is the one that said one of the things that would maintain unity in the Faith was that interference in individual conscience is forbidden. What I want to see is for people to be left alone, and allowed to express their opinions without fear. Exactly what would be so terrible about that? > Michael was not just speculating that the decision might be changed under > certain circumstances, he was stating that the present decision was contrary to > Baha'i principles and this only proved that this body could not be regarded as > infallible, contrary to the W&T. << So, you must believe in UHJ infallibility to be a Baha'i? They'd better start putting that on declaration cards. That's one thing that has come up lately on my group -- when you come into the Faith you're told all you have to do is believe in Baha'u'llah to be a Baha'i, or even that you were always a Baha'i without knowing it. Then once you get in, there's this whole administrative ball of wax they dump on you, after you're hooked. I've gone from "being a Baha'i without knowing it" to "not being a Baha'i even though I think I am". What you're told depends on what direction somebody wants to yank you. Love, Karen > >Paul, I think it was intended to force her to come crawling to them to find > >out. Of course, the decent thing to do would be to inform the disenrollee > >what the reasons for the decision were. > > Come on, Karen. It was no mystery. The letter told her it was due to the kind > of internet postings she had made of the last couple of years. She knew full > well what they were referring to. << The letter to Alison said nothing other than it was due to her "behavior and attitude" that she was booted. The explanatory email that referred to her postings was not sent to Alison; she received it from friends. As for "the kind of internet postings" she was making, they are on her website and speak for themselves. It is indeed still a mystery precisely what she said that caused her to get kicked out. Perhaps this spring when her case comes to court, there will be documentation released on that. > >Michael wasn't told either; his wife > >had to write and ask. > > Michael had already been told by his Board Member what the problem was and had > agreed not to do it anymore. He didn't keep that agreeement. << Michael did know, at least, that there were concerns. He was not told that his membership was at risk. His ABM also advised him to write to the House with the issues troubling him, and a fat lot of good that did him. He was still in the middle of this correspondence when this all happened -- poor guy's first thought when he was booted was that he hadn't responded to the House's last letter quickly enough. It's there in his letter responding to the announcement that he'd been disnenrolled. Love, Karen > > The fall out from this still isn't over. Peter Khan now goes around > the South Island telling them all that there is spiritual disease in > their community, because the UHJ didn't like the "tone" of some > of the protests Alison's booting brought.<< Even better, he equated such protests with the Calamity that was supposed to precede the Lesser Peace, and which Baha'is have been waiting for and speculating about for the entire twentieth century. Quite a comedown from expecting evaporating cities and poisoned atmosphere, I'd say. Yep, letters protesting injustice sure are a big disaster for mankind. > > Of course, the *other* reason this still isn't over is that Alison's > case actually comes before the Privacy commissioner in NZ > this year. > > My own suspicion is that the reason *she* didn't get told the > reasons was because they didn't make the reasons up until > after they found they had a protest to deal with.<< Paul, I think it was intended to force her to come crawling to them to find out. Of course, the decent thing to do would be to inform the disenrollee what the reasons for the decision were. Michael wasn't told either; his wife had to write and ask. The notion that a person can be suddenly tossed out without warning or explanation, and then the onus is on *them* to go asking what they did wrong is just monstrous. Love, Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:21 PM Exactly, Randy, thank you. That's the problem with conspiracies -- there's absolutely no way to prove you *aren't* part of one. I was not there when all this happened; all I have to go on is the documented evidence that is available to me. Now, granted, this is not complete in every detail. But when I look at the facts of what happened, and what is actually contained in the LA study class notes, Dialogue, and Talisman-1, I do not see conspiracy, or even hostility towards the Institutions. I see frustration and the painful scars of earlier crack-downs on Talisman-1 -- that's about it. When the UHJ complains of the "intemperate criticism" of the Dialogue group, I find myself completely mystified -- at the very least, they must be talking about private comments and correspondence, not the pages of the magazine itself. "A Modest Proposal" is a very model of restrained criticism, and the attempt to positively address the problem of slowing growth in the community. The only thing that I can figure is that such an exaggerated kind of deference is expected in one's attitude towards the institutions that the vigorous discussion of ideas -- or even a strong self-defense, is considered evidence of guilt. In such an environment, no one with an independent thought in their heads need apply. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Randy Burns wrote in message news:jvr08.1193$ud6.407343@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... > As should be obvious, Karen, > > >The fact is that the Dialogue crowd meekly closed their > > magazine down rather than make a stand and fight. Most of them that were > > later on Talisman didn't make a stand and fight, either. > > they always tried to obey the Institutions, even when it hurt. But there > was no two way street. Essentially we are talking Kangaroo court here, they > were guilty from the start, guilty for asking questions, guilty for > disturbing the "Unity" of the whole and the "radiant acquiescence" of the > ranking members of the Institutions. > > It's funny, but Rod wants to bring "due process" to the community, but if > you are charged with "conspiracy" how can you prove your innocence? What > would be the point of trying? > > Cheers, Randy-- > > Karen Bacquet wrote in message > news:u44dsejo93ircf@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > Quite frankly I don't think the Faith was at the center of the lives of > > any of > > > the people who were removed from the rolls. Fred was not active in his > > Baha'i > > > community at the time and Alison was largely inactive as well, as she > > admitted > > > to me when I visited her in New Zealand.<< > > > > I didn't think being inactive was supposed to have anything to do with > one's > > belief. I run into Baha'is all the time that tell me that we're supposed > to > > assume that all those mail-returns are really Baha'is, and who get more > than > > a little huffy when I suggest that most of them are no longer believers. > It > > comes up nearly every time the question of inflated statistics comes up. > > > > Both Fred and Mike are here, and can speak for themselves if they choose. > > Alison is not only a Baha'i, but a Baha'i mystic, for whom Baha'u'llah is > > the central reality. The gentlemen in Haifa equate membership in the > > community with being a believing Baha'i, and in expelling Alison from the > > community, they are saying she is not a believer. That's a rotten thing to > > do to somebody, and untrue to boot. > > > > > > > > I think the real issue here, Karen is that the Faith was central to > *your* > > > life. But you weren't kicked out. You left.<< > > > > I'm not sure why you consider that "the real issue". I left voluntarily; > > I've never suggested otherwise. I also made a deliberate decision about > six > > months previously to become inactive, because the local community's > > disorganization frustrated me so badly that I'd finally had it. (Just as > an > > example of that disorganization, nobody from the local community actually > > called me during those six inactive months, so they probably never noticed > > the difference.) My Baha'i community activity had been very sporadic for > > the previous five years, again, largely due to the disorganization here, > > rather than my preference. This, however, did not mean that my faith was > > not important to me. > > > > But I do not see how that is relevant to the issue at hand. I suggested > > that the thing most likely to resolve this situation is for the UHJ to > stop > > punishing dissidents. You said that for them to bounce them out of the > > Faith is essentially doing that. I vehemently disagree with that position. > > > > > > >Dialogue was the very > > > >soul of tact and obedience compared to the voices we have now. The > > > >administration took believers, people that were essentially on their > > side, > > > >and made them into vocal critics. > > > > > > No, they weren't Karen. I knew them at the time, remember?<< > > > > All I have is documented evidence. Certainly the magazine itself was > > restrained. If they were smart-asses behind the scenes, there is no way > for > > me to tell that. And I'm not sure people ought to be punished for making > > smart-assed comments behind the scenes.(And just what slimy little creep > was > > reporting those smart-assed comments to upper echelons, huh?) But I see > > Randy has responded -- he's from LA and goes way back with these guys. > > > > The thing is, Susan, I hear all the time how terrible those guys were back > > then, but when it comes to evidence -- it isn't there. You must not have > > been too horrified at their behavior at the time, or you wouldn't have > been > > hanging with them. The fact is that the Dialogue crowd meekly closed their > > magazine down rather than make a stand and fight. Most of them that were > > later on Talisman didn't make a stand and fight, either. > > > > Karen > > > > > > > > www.bahai-faith.tk > > How would you know? You've never appealed anything.<< I pay attention to what happens to other people. You know me, Susan, I gather up every scrap of information I can find. > > >And AO-loyalists are > >always trying to get me to write to these people! Yeah, when I'm ready to > >metamorphose into a cockroach. > > Well, you should probably at least wait until you can address them without > accusing them of turning you into it. > > If that wouldn't be too much of a violation of your 'honesty.' << LOL! I figured that one would get your attention. Yes, I would not write to the House of Justice until I was able to be, at the very least, the soul of tact and diplomacy. I don't think I will ever be too good at grovelling, though. I was going to draft a letter when Alison was disenrolled, but did not send it because I was too angry, and figured it would do more harm than good -- so I do, at least, have some good sense. Love, Karen > > I'm not sure what ones are up on the web. Why don't you give me the URL and > I'll see if what I'm talking about is up there when I get the chance<< O.K. It's https://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol2/lastudy/laclass.htm There's a lot of material there, and it's tough to read, being scanned from old carbons of the notes. I've got most of them printed out -- they're easier to read that way. > >I did see one reference there to certain, especially upper-class, Baha'is in > >Iran that probably would have upset the powers-that-be, and I would agree > >that it was somewhat unwise. > > It was more serious than that, but I won't repeat it here. If you ask me > privately, I'll tell you.<< That's the only reference I saw in the notes that are on the web. > > >However, what I do not see in the LA Study > >class notes is evidence of a campaign, or evidence that the people involved > >in that class were attempting to harm the Faith or its institutions, or that > >they were not sincere Baha'is. > > There was no single campaign, there were little mini-campaigns like the one to > get women elected to the Universal House of Justice or get people to boycott > review (though the latter was somewhat later.) As for attempting to harm the > Faith or its institutions, I didn't say that. I said they were they were vocal > critics of the AO. << And what I said is that intervention only increased the resentment and stridency of those criticisms. Just tonight, I was looking up something in the old Talisman-1 archives and came across some comments Juan made about the Dialogue episode. Critical, yes. But I myself have said far harsher things about it. In fact, I left the Faith over it, when Juan still hung in there until he was threatened personally. It is far more restrained than the things Juan, or the other dissidents, for that matter, are saying these days. What was so terrible about either the LA class notes or Dialogue that has made the intervention and that aftermath worthwhile? And if the UHJ keeps pushing, the dissidents will keep pushing back -- some will fall by the wayside and get sick of the whole thing, but the group as a whole will still be there. The polarization will continue, and what started as the critiques of intellectuals who just wanted the freedom to express themselves is going to end in something very bad for the Faith, indeed. Love, Karen www.bahai-faith.tk Brian Walker wrote in message news:a1tgq1$nmm$1@hfc.pacific.net.hk... > Greetings Karen, > > I enjy your posts too, although I disagree fairly often with your POV ;) > - in this case you said<< Dear Brian, Thank you. . Could it be that the seeds of such > behaviou were manifest earlier, just veiled to our eyes? It is easy > enough to pull the wool over anybody's eyes with some cunning and > forethought. Hey - I should know, I am a doctor!<< That is always a possibility; there is no way to know with absolute certainty what is going on in someone's head and heart. But, why should I be assuming that somebody who seemed to be a sincere Baha'i was simply faking it all along? What I'm seeing here is an escalating cycle -- liberals create a forum for their ideas, the Institutions react, which creates even more ill-feeling on the part of the liberals who express themselves even more stridently on the next forum they create, planting the seeds for yet another crackdown. In a nutshell, that's the history of the LA study group, Dialogue, Talisman, clear up to present-day Baha'i cyberspace. As for Juan himself, he was far from being among the most radical of the old LA group. It was being on the receiving end of the Talisman investigation that made him the very vocal critic he is today. I'm convinced that it is the Institution's actions that have created the kind of poisoned atmosphere that exists here. I've also done some poking around in other religion's forums -- I' m still looking for another religion that has punished people for their emails. I keep being assured that this exists, but have yet to find an example or specific case. But what I *have* found is that the only religions whose cyberspace dialogue has the same sort of dynamic that happens among Baha'is -- i.e. vocal and critical former members complaining about conditions within the religion vs. loyalists attempting to defend the status quo and personally discredit the critics -- exists only in marginal sects/borderline cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Eckankar, and Scientology. Even the Mormons don't act like we do! Believe me, I get no pleasure out of thinking of the Baha'i Faith as being on the lunatic fringe, but that's what I'm seeing out there. > > > All Baha'i liberals > > ever wanted to was to serve the Faith they loved through their own > > vision. It is the system who is doing the attacking, and refuses to > > allow coexistence, and the Baha'i Faith will pay a terrible price for > > it. > > This passage is where I profoundly disagree. First you define people as > liberal or non-liberal. Should you not rather see people as Baha'is who > are coming to personal understandings, without the need to categorize? Do > that, and you stop polarization immediately. Unity cannot thrive if you > fail in this area. << O.K., I get this complaint all the time. In fact, the terms for those associated with the LA group/Dialogue/Talisman crowd are always shifting.(Liberals, libertarians, exiles, dissidents, independents, "Back to Baha'u'llah" movement, etc.etc.) There is a difference in perspective here. If you can't name those perspectives, how can they be discussed? Also, when you insist that there is no differing perspectives within the Faith, you invite description of this division as simply "Baha'i" ideas, and "not Baha'i" ideas -- labelling devoted believers in Baha'u'llah as somehow being beyond the pale. Also, in religious studies, such labels are commonly used to describe differing perspectives in the same religion -- nearly all religions have liberals and conservatives in them. Some Christians openly and proudly assert that they are fundamentalist. However, Baha'is, even those who ought to know better, tend to be in denial about this. > > Secondly, "all they ever wanted to do was ...." which is a phrasing which > implies correctness (no matter if they are correct or not - you > automatically castigate those not in the camp you champion as wrong - is > that fair or right?" ... which you follow by saying they wanted to serve > the Faith through their own vision. << I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. What I'm saying is that I do not see some kind of long-term underhanded scheme going on that justified institutional action against Baha'i liberals. If you know of evidence that prove that such was going on, then please present it. > > Well now, here we come to the main point of my contention. Each > one of us has a personal vision and a personal understanding. AISI, each > POV is right (and also wrong). Those who come into _conflict_ with the > system are those who seem to want to make the point that their own > personal understanding is somehow more correct than someone elses, and > drive that home in fairlky strong terms. Is that a fair comment?<< No, I don't see that. I see the expression of their perspective; I do not see any attempt to force it on anyone. On the contrary, I see the imposition of a particular viewpoint on Baha'i Teaching coming from the conservative direction, backed up by threats and sanctions from the Institutions. > > If so, then the real issue is not one of the independence of thought and > hopes of a personal vision, but one of the greater understanding of > community, obedience to the commands of Bahá'u'lláh (Gleanings II) and > striving for true unity in true diversity. The main failing AISI of the so-called > liberals is the insistence they have that their POV is somehow inherently > better, purer than the POV of others. << They are always accused of that, but I don't see that in what they are saying. In fact, I think it is precisely because the liberal perspective has been espoused by educated and articulate people that there is the fear that these views will be given creedence. That is, because Juan is a Professor, and an expert on Middle Eastern History, his views carry a sort of credibility that neither you or I will have. But, to me, that does not translate into his "insistence" that he is right -- any more than you or I might be attached to a particular opinion. Is he supposed to, then, refrain from expressing his point of view lest they be taken seriously, or because they might influence someone by virtue of his position? That isn't fair, and amounts to an attempt to silence and/or discredit some of our best and brightest people. He himself just recently said that what the "campaign" that liberals are so often accused of really translates to is the holding of a consistent opinion and expressing it publicly. > > The views that you espouse so well could well be my own. But I may be > wrong in my POV, so share and enjoy the difference. Now, *there's* an idea I can get behind! :-) Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Sekhmet wrote in message news:20020114040407.10187.00004633@mb-fh.aol.com... > Karen wrote: > >It depends on one's definition of "attack". When I have occasion to look > >through the Talisman -1 archives, I'm very struck by just how restrained > >things are there. > > Please keep in mind that those are "selected" archives (it says so right on the > website). Yes, I am aware that the archives are incomplete, although I have seen Juan post additions there, so I'm hoping they will be complete eventually. And this means what, exactly? That I'm to assume the UHJ was justified in threatening these people with excommunication until I have examined all the posts that were there? Don't think so. Karen > > > As for Juan > >himself, he was far from being among the most radical of the old LA group. > > Nope. No one could outdo Steve Scholl in that regard. :-) << Oh, I thought David Langness was the baddest bad boy of the old crowd. > > >It was being on the receiving end of the Talisman investigation that made > >him the very vocal critic he is today. > > Hardly. He was very vocal critic all along. It is just that after he left the > Faith he became utterly nasty.<< I haven't seen much open criticism from Juan before the Talisman crackdown. > > >I'm convinced that it is the > >Institution's actions that have created the kind of poisoned atmosphere that > >exists here. > > The poison comes from the ones spewing it.<< Oh, yeah, people who get screwed are supposed to stay all sweetness and light about it. > > > > >O.K., I get this complaint all the time. In fact, the terms for those > >associated with the LA group/Dialogue/Talisman crowd are always > >shifting.(Liberals, libertarians, exiles, dissidents, independents, "Back to > >Baha'u'llah" movement, etc.etc.) There is a difference in perspective here. > >If you can't name those perspectives, how can they be discussed? > > Then at least name them accurately. Most Baha'is would identify themselves as > liberals. Almost none would call themselves fundamentalists.<< Oh, no Baha'i I know would call *themselves* a fundamentalist. But they definitely exist: They're the ones who have called me a "Manifestation of Satan", compared me to a vampire, expressed pity and concern for any children who might be exposed to me as a schoolteacher, and accused me of fighting against God, having a giant ego, being a "violator", and attempting to politicize the Faith and undermine its unity. I will, however, agree that such people are atypical in the Baha'i community as a whole. At least, I sure hope so. I never ran into them out in the real world. Of course, I was never so mouthy in the real world. However, I would not call the typical Baha'i a liberal, either, although there are many liberals out there -- and I *have* met them in real life. I would call the mainstream either "conservative" or "traditional". Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk But if you want to > describe their differences in perspective then 'Back to Baha'u'llah' probably > works best, in that it very much resembles the 'Back to the Gathas' movement in > Zoroastrianism or 'Back to the Vedas' in Hinduism. As those movements > represented an attempt to divorce the scriptures from the traditions of the > community of faith that transmitted them and reinterpret according to > Enlightment ideals, so what you have here is a movement which seeks to recreate > Baha'u'lah sans the Covenant along similiar lines. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > www.bahai-faith.tk > >. Just tonight, I was looking up something in > >the old Talisman-1 archives and came across some comments Juan made about > >the Dialogue episode. Critical, yes. But I myself have said far harsher > >things about it. > > Like the AO wanted us to be insects? :-) Well, as a non-Baha'is you are free to > say whatever you want, Karen. But you are right, Juan never accused the > Institution of turning people into roaches all the time he was a Baha'i. See, I'm lots badder than those guys.:-) > > > And if the UHJ > >keeps pushing, the dissidents will keep pushing back -- some will fall by > >the wayside and get sick of the whole thing, but the group as a whole will > >still be there. > > Looks like to me the the group is turning on one another and falling apart. To coin a phrase: The rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020113231657.23486.00002215@mb-md.aol.com... > >All I have is documented evidence. > > Well, ask to see the minutes of the LA Study Group. Maybe then you will see > what I mean. If you're talking about the LA study class notes that are available on the web, I've examined them -- I wrote an article about the LA study class, remember? But I did not see there the kind of stuff you are talking about; I never did find that fascist reference -- you've mentioned that before. Or are you saying that there is some other set of documented records of these discussions that were distributed? The only thing I saw was that some people complained that the "free discussion" part of those meetings tended to degenerate into a gripe session. > > >And just what slimy little creep was > >reporting those smart-assed comments to upper echelons, huh?) > > The minutes were published and distributed, even overseas. That was one of the > first things that got the House upset with these guys. Especially when they > said some things which endangered the lives of the Baha'is in Iran. But I won't > restate those here, for obvious reasons.<< I did see one reference there to certain, especially upper-class, Baha'is in Iran that probably would have upset the powers-that-be, and I would agree that it was somewhat unwise. However, what I do not see in the LA Study class notes is evidence of a campaign, or evidence that the people involved in that class were attempting to harm the Faith or its institutions, or that they were not sincere Baha'is. Karen https://www.themestream-bahai.tk > > >The thing is, Susan, I hear all the time how terrible those guys were back > >then, but when it comes to evidence -- it isn't there. > > I just told you what evidence there is. Go check it out. -- www.bahai-faith.tk > > Karen, the Institutions don't want people to defend themselves. What they > want is total and complete submission to their Will. The act of > self-defense itself is a crime against the Institution. Yes, I know. That's what makes the whole reassurance that traditionalists always give "You can always appeal an unjust decision", such a crock. The very fact you are complaining will be held against you! It's pretty much "My way or the highway" with these guys. But the theory that one can actually get somewhere by appealing always leaves a person vulnerable to the charge, by his fellow-believers, that they did not try hard enough to work out the situation. Even now, people keep saying that Alison should have gone to the UHJ instead of filing her lawsuit. Do you for one minute believe they would have accepted anything less than abject grovelling in repentance? I have seen letters aimed at persuading the institutions not to punish, and they are quite nauseating in their self-abasement. On the other hand, letters that honestly express the natural feelings of being treated unjustly are sometimes considered in evidence against a person. I guess they don't want you to be honest; they want you to be an insect. And AO-loyalists are always trying to get me to write to these people! Yeah, when I'm ready to metamorphose into a cockroach. Love, Karen > > Randy > > > > Quite frankly I don't think the Faith was at the center of the lives of any of > the people who were removed from the rolls. Fred was not active in his Baha'i > community at the time and Alison was largely inactive as well, as she admitted > to me when I visited her in New Zealand.<< I didn't think being inactive was supposed to have anything to do with one's belief. I run into Baha'is all the time that tell me that we're supposed to assume that all those mail-returns are really Baha'is, and who get more than a little huffy when I suggest that most of them are no longer believers. It comes up nearly every time the question of inflated statistics comes up. Both Fred and Mike are here, and can speak for themselves if they choose. Alison is not only a Baha'i, but a Baha'i mystic, for whom Baha'u'llah is the central reality. The gentlemen in Haifa equate membership in the community with being a believing Baha'i, and in expelling Alison from the community, they are saying she is not a believer. That's a rotten thing to do to somebody, and untrue to boot. > > I think the real issue here, Karen is that the Faith was central to *your* > life. But you weren't kicked out. You left.<< I'm not sure why you consider that "the real issue". I left voluntarily; I've never suggested otherwise. I also made a deliberate decision about six months previously to become inactive, because the local community's disorganization frustrated me so badly that I'd finally had it. (Just as an example of that disorganization, nobody from the local community actually called me during those six inactive months, so they probably never noticed the difference.) My Baha'i community activity had been very sporadic for the previous five years, again, largely due to the disorganization here, rather than my preference. This, however, did not mean that my faith was not important to me. But I do not see how that is relevant to the issue at hand. I suggested that the thing most likely to resolve this situation is for the UHJ to stop punishing dissidents. You said that for them to bounce them out of the Faith is essentially doing that. I vehemently disagree with that position. > > >Dialogue was the very > >soul of tact and obedience compared to the voices we have now. The > >administration took believers, people that were essentially on their side, > >and made them into vocal critics. > > No, they weren't Karen. I knew them at the time, remember?<< All I have is documented evidence. Certainly the magazine itself was restrained. If they were smart-asses behind the scenes, there is no way for me to tell that. And I'm not sure people ought to be punished for making smart-assed comments behind the scenes.(And just what slimy little creep was reporting those smart-assed comments to upper echelons, huh?) But I see Randy has responded -- he's from LA and goes way back with these guys. The thing is, Susan, I hear all the time how terrible those guys were back then, but when it comes to evidence -- it isn't there. You must not have been too horrified at their behavior at the time, or you wouldn't have been hanging with them. The fact is that the Dialogue crowd meekly closed their magazine down rather than make a stand and fight. Most of them that were later on Talisman didn't make a stand and fight, either. Karen -- https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020113023011.23489.00001685@mb-md.aol.com... > >If the UHJ really > >wants to know how to take the wind out of the sails of the dissidents, then > >the answer is very simple: Leave them alone. > > Dear Karen, > > For the most part that is exactly what they are doing. Removing them from the > rolls and leaving them alone.<< Oh, for the love of God, Susan!! Why should I even talk to you if you're going to sound like the most obdurate, brain-dead, fundamentalist? Kicking somebody out of their religion, without warning or explanation, essentially declaring that the faith that is at the center of their lives is nonexistent *is* doing something to a person. Duh. > > If the UHJ wants that > >to stop, then *it* has to stop -- it's that simple. > > You know, Karen, the House of Justice was being attacked long, long before they > started removing anyone from the rolls. And certainly their responses have been > much more restrained than those attacks.<< It depends on one's definition of "attack". When I have occasion to look through the Talisman -1 archives, I'm very struck by just how restrained things are there. People who can't speak to each other without yelling now, were talking to each other then. In Juan's posts, in particular, I see an innocence, something almost naive, that's gone now -- killed by his experience. (I saw a definite change in Alison because of her disenrollment, too, but of course that was later.) The UHJ didn't know when it had it easy., and it sure doesn't seem to realize what this kind of thing really does to people. The polarization and paranoia that one sees out in Baha'i cyberspace is a direct result of the House's actions. Dialogue was the very soul of tact and obedience compared to the voices we have now. The administration took believers, people that were essentially on their side, and made them into vocal critics. That's really not very smart. All Baha'i liberals ever wanted to was to serve the Faith they loved through their own vision. It is the system who is doing the attacking, and refuses to allow coexistence, and the Baha'i Faith will pay a terrible price for it. Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Back to Baha'u'llah! Date: Sunday, January 20, 2002 9:09 PM > And what view of the Covenant do you have, Karen? << I've answered that question about a zillion times. One place you can find a statement on it is at https://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=23172&discussionID= 77068 If I've somehow made a mistake in the link, it's on Beliefnet's Questioning Baha'is board, at the beginning of the thread called "My Statement on the Covenant. Karen > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > In the centuries to come, some of the recent intepretations of Shoghi > Effendi will become less accurate, as the situation of the world > continues to change, and many interpretations will remain. << Dear Pat, I agree with you here that it is inevitable that eventually some policies and interpretations of Shoghi Effendi's will eventually go by the wayside. It is inevitable; things change over time. Nobody will ever say "We're chucking the Guardian's interpretation"; they will just reinterpret him. But they will fight tooth-and-nail those changes and cling to Shoghi Effendi until they are forced by circumstances to let go. I think one example is the very interpretation that the Guardianship exists without a Guardian -- certainly that has nothing to do with anything Shoghi Effendi said! > > We have a choice. We can continue to do business as we have done, for > another 850 years. When a question comes up, first see what Shoghi > Effendi said about, it, then, see what 'Abdu'l Baha said about it, then > see what Baha'u'llah said about it. This approach gives precedent to a) > an imperfect man who was a perfect living interpreter, but for centures > after his life ended, then b) a perfect man who was a perfect living > interpreter, but for centures after his life ended, then, finally, c) > the Manifestation of God. This approach was certainly correct when the > living interpreter was alive, and was certainly useful in the decades > after his ascension. But to use this approach for the centuries to come > is a mistake: it supplants the guidance of the Manifestation of God, > whose world embracing vision will ultimately span hundreds of centuries, > with someone who was supposed to intperpret things within their > lifespan.<< That's very well-said, Pat. There's hope for you yet! I fell in love with Baha'u'llah, and just took on the rest because it seemed to be part of the package. And I think there's a lot of people like me out there. They can pour their rigid view of the Covenant down everyone's throats all they want -- but it's Baha'u'llah who makes us Baha'is, and no one else. Love, Karen . It > is not a single fundamentalist view that is invalid, it is the refusal > to tolerate any other opinion. That refusal is what is wrong.<< Yes, Michael, exactly. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > To the vast diversity of valid opinions. To the freedom of though and > expression. To Baha'i, M. > > > "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > >> >Baha'u'llah, in the Iqan, tells us the story of Noah, and how a promised > >> >prophecy didn't occur. > >> > >> Dear Karen, > >> > >> This wasn't a prophecy in that sense. It was a promise made explicitly for > > the > >> purpose of securing obedience to the House of Justice.<< > > > > And not because it was supposed to really happen? So we're just supposed to > > pretend like we believe all their decisions are divinely guided, even when > > they violate basic principles that are found in the Writings themselves? > > > > >> >I'm supposed to > >> >throw that away because the gentlemen in Haifa have made some bad > > decisions? > >> > >> You might consider that just maybe you might be the one who is wrong. << > > > > Not without abandoning everything I have ever believed was right and good > > and true -- everything that ever made me a Baha'i in the first place. > > > > Love, Karen > > https://www.bahaullah.tk > > > > > > > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > >Baha'u'llah, in the Iqan, tells us the story of Noah, and how a promised > >prophecy didn't occur. > > Dear Karen, > > This wasn't a prophecy in that sense. It was a promise made explicitly for the > purpose of securing obedience to the House of Justice.<< And not because it was supposed to really happen? So we're just supposed to pretend like we believe all their decisions are divinely guided, even when they violate basic principles that are found in the Writings themselves? > >I'm supposed to > >throw that away because the gentlemen in Haifa have made some bad decisions? > > You might consider that just maybe you might be the one who is wrong. << Not without abandoning everything I have ever believed was right and good and true -- everything that ever made me a Baha'i in the first place. Love, Karen https://www.bahaullah.tk > Hey, Karen, > > While I'm sure Jay will find it instructive to read your interesting > essays - are you sure you're not just showing off about the impressive > new net addresses you've managed to nab before anyone else did? > > I guess, if tk really *does* take off, it will be impossible for > anyone interested in the Faith to miss you! That's the point! They only give you three free ones per email address, though. Another cool thing is that they keep track of your traffic, so you know how each individual page is doing. But you're right; I am getting the hang of this Internet promotion stuff. For a website that started out as a computer literacy class project, it's pretty visible out there. My Cultic Studies Journal article will be posted towards the end of February, so y'all won't have to hunt up a paper copy. As for showing off, it's just easier to type out the shorter URLs. :-) Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk also known as https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html > > Love, > > Paul > > btw, in case you or anyone else is wondering why I haven't been > around for a few days: a) I went away for the weekend, and > car trouble kept me away till Monday evening. b) My newsserver > stopped sending new posts to me last Tuesday, so now I am > Googling. I think that a bunch of my last round of replies > went astray too. Thank you, Dave, for being understanding. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Dave Fiorito wrote in message news:f0853486.0201220916.6430280e@posting.google.com... > Karen, > > Thanks. I know that communicating in writing can get tedious when you > are asked the same question in a dozen different places. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > Which thread has your conversation with Susan?<< Dear Dave, It's in the Internet Crackdown thread, around Jan. 15, when Susan asks me basically the same question you did. Love, Karen > > Cheers, > > Dave www.bahai-faith.tk Pat Kohli wrote in message news:3C49097C.928E1715@ameritel.net... > Allahu Abha! > > Karen Bacquet wrote: > > > . >>(And do keep praying saying those prayers, Karen.) << > > > > Faithfully. The obligatory prayer, and the Greatest Name 95 times, and > > reciting the Writings morning and evening -- at a minimum. > > > > If we all gathered together around the prayers, we'd have a whole lot less > > to disagree about. > > Recently I've seen the wisdom and beauty of this.<< Allahu Abha, Pat! And blessings to you, too. So you're no longer against prayer meetings? :-) Love, Karen > > Blessings! > -Pat > kohli@ameritel.net > > Karen Bacquet wrote: > > > > Oh, no Baha'i I know would call *themselves* a fundamentalist. But they > > definitely exist: They're the ones who have called me a "Manifestation of > > Satan", compared me to a vampire, expressed pity and concern for any > > children who might be exposed to me as a schoolteacher, and accused me of > > fighting against God, having a giant ego, being a "violator", and attempting > > to politicize the Faith and undermine its unity. I will, however, agree > > that such people are atypical in the Baha'i community as a whole. At least, > > I sure hope so. I never ran into them out in the real world. Of course, I > > was never so mouthy in the real world. > > I think you have confused fundamentalism with hypocrisy. The "vampire" caller > had himself announced his departure and then snuck back onto the forum with a > new handle - clearly sneaky, avoiding the light of illumination, a creature of > darkness, and, like the thorough hypocrite, he calls you the vampire - while he > was far more clearly the undead one. I suspect that he also accused you of > being a violator, etc.<< He did not call me everything on my list, but was a major contributor, yes. The shot about the kids in my classroom came from someone who commented on one of my Themestream articles; the bit about "fighting against God" came from a person who initially asked me for a link to the Service of Women paper and when I provided that and helpfully offered to give her more information (which would have included the UHJ's side, btw), she wrote back a huffy and nasty message. Dusty's the one who accused me of politicizing the Faith. > > The plainly observable fact is that his practice of the faith is > anti-fundamentalist. He takes upon himself the prerogatives of the leadership > of the cause, or a Hand of the Cause, in declaring those who disagree with him > to be adversaries of the UHJ, CBs, etc.<< It is characteristic of extreme fundamentalists that they betray the very message they think they are defending. Do you think that the Christian Identity folks are really abiding by the teachings of Jesus? Remeyites are actually one variety of Baha'i fundamentalist, so literal about the Guardianship that they are willing to break the teachings opposing schism. Ironically, it is very typical of fundamentalist to accuse liberals of "picking and choosing" from the tradition, when they themselves will get hung up on a narrow selection from scripture, to a much greater extent that a liberal will. This is thoroughly contrary to the > disciplined order which appeals to the conservative fundamentalist, such as YT.<< You're not a fundamentalist, Pat. You're just an ordinary mainstream, traditional Baha'i. > > His best pal is _notorious_ for chatting away with Remeyites - a practice which > is so liberal it seems to me, disobedient to the guidance of 'Abdu'l Baha, > Shoghi Effendi (though AB and SE do not specifically mention Remeyites, they do > describe lack of conduct toward CBs and associates), and the UHJ (thus, _too_ > liberal, to be considered truly loyal to the AO). The hypocrite is completely > tolerant and quite accepting of that, while denouncing _real_ > conservative/fundies, such as YT, as the attackers of the AO.<< Nobody is more aggravating to an extremist than a moderate. > > Please, please, if you want to hold Freddy B. up as an example of the Bad Baha'i > who claims loyalty to the UHJ, please, get your categorizations right. << No Pithy/Effy/Fred is not an example of anything but a lunatic-fringe cultist. My original point was that such people exist within the Faith, not that everyone who is loyal to the administration is one of them. By no > stretch of the imagination can he be categorized properly as anything but > _hypocritical_. Yes, he clearly has liberal _proclivities_, but he shows no > sign of thoughts on the matter - his contradictions are too opaque to be a real > liberal. He is an anti-social, mean nasty hypocrite, and with my absence from > the newly hosted B-Net boards, the undead one has climbed out of his casket, > again.<< Yes, I noticed that. He was saying that if the Beliefnet rules about personal abuse had been clear from the beginning, none of the nastiness there would have happened! Does he mean me or himself? He's the one that had his posts removed. > > If you see him on Brent and WC's B-Net Baha'i Boards, please put the stake in > his heart. The honor is yours.<< Thank you. I may just do that when I'm the in mood. Love, Karen > . >>(And do keep praying saying those prayers, Karen.) << Faithfully. The obligatory prayer, and the Greatest Name 95 times, and reciting the Writings morning and evening -- at a minimum. If we all gathered together around the prayers, we'd have a whole lot less to disagree about. Love, Karen > > We are just going to have continuing semantic issues. "Hypocrite" is a > recognized word, it seems to have all of the meanings that you would associate > with "fundamentalist". These two are not _necessarily_ synonyms - and I think > we are just going to disagree on that.<< Dear Pat, I'm always amenable to agreeing to disagree. :-) > > (snips) > > > Yes, I noticed that. He was saying that if the Beliefnet rules about > > > personal abuse had been clear from the beginning, none of the nastiness > > there would have happened! > > An objective read would be that he is apologizing for violating the B-Net > rules. Having dealt with him, and observed that he is out of touch with > himself, I conclude it is not an apology at all.<< Oh, heck, no! > > > Does he mean me or himself? > > He means me, you, Rod, Jim, etc. He means he never would have pretended to run > off and hide from Bully Pat; no, if he'd known, he'd have called the pohlease on > me.<< The only time I called the authorities on Fred/Effy/Pith was when I was getting beaten up on the Learn About board. (Remember the Shame on you, Karen Bacquet diatribe?) And it took them a long time to respond. They were telling me that since the Learn About board was for Baha'is to answer questions from non-Baha'is, I should only be allowed to *ask* questions, not *answer* them. Then an off-topic "Answer the Question" hounding on the W&T, with the question being along the lines of "How can you claim to be a Baha'i when you know very well you're a shameless violater?" And I think it all started because I used the words "liberal" and "conservative" to a person doing research on how the Internet has affected religious groups. I'm always amazed how little it takes to set these guys off. > > > He's the one that > > had his posts removed. > > I think many of the cow pies are still there.<< Oh, yeah. I don't think Beliefnet really likes removing posts, so they only do it when people get really awful. > > > > > > If you see him on Brent and WC's B-Net Baha'i Boards, please put the stake > > in > > > his heart. The honor is yours.<< > > > > Thank you. I may just do that when I'm the in mood. > > If you'd like, I could pass you some fragrant links on the both of them.<< Yes, thank you. But I'm in too good a mood to go fundy-fighting right at the moment. I'm having an article published, and I just got an idea for another article, and found someplace where it might be published, so I'm into more creative stuff than putting stakes into vampires. However, sometime when I'm feeling mean and nasty, I just might show up when you least expect it. :-) After all, somebody's got to take up the torch after Nima and Dermod's retirement. :-) I'll keep an eye on things there, Pat, and jump in when I can. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020123001949.11405.00004666@mb-cg.aol.com... > > > >That's what she says *now* - not what she said at the time. > > No, Paul. That is what she said immediately after receiving the letter from her > NSA. It was posted here. Should we repost it? << Susan, I'd say her feelings went quite back and forth on it. Not long after posting that message, she gave up her position as moderator on Talisman because of the emotional strain -- and was especially upset by the flock of conservatives that settled in to discuss her case. She compared them to vultures, and felt she was being dehumanized and reduced to a "case". This is, in fact, why a certain Irishman of our acquaintance began moderating in her stead. It also was a factor in the creation of Zuhur, since Alison felt that Talisman had been ruined for her, and she wanted there to be a place of refuge among friends. When I wrote to her privately quite a while later, she said it took several weeks to recover from the shock. Love, Karen > > > > > > > > > He's the one that > > > > had his posts removed. > > > > > > I think many of the cow pies are still there.<< > > > > Oh, yeah. I don't think Beliefnet really likes removing posts, so they only > > do it when people get really awful. > > > > Oh my! I still think that Dusty's deleted "Salmani the Barber" message might > not have been the death threat that it was treated as. When I bid adieu to to > Beliefnet's Baha'i Boards, pointing out the existence of other Baha'i web boards > on the "Meet Your Hosts" thread, I got deleted, real quick - perhaps pointing > out alternatives for those who might feel uncomfortable, is "truly awful".<< No kidding! They deleted you, Pat? I never saw your posts there. Why, in heaven's name? I'm going to have to keep a closer watch on that place. I was really hoping that they'd put non-Baha'is in charge of the Baha'i board -- I don't think there's any way they are going to be able to keep it entirely fair. I almost volunteered myself as a host, then decided it was a headache I didn't need. > > I'll keep an eye on things there, Pat, > > and jump in when I can. > > Definitely, you take care of business, at your pace. There is an old Persian > proverb about lamps. When you want some, you know where I live. They deleted > my farewell message, and though I will forgive, I will not forget, and I'll hold > the bookmarks on "We Wuz Snookered" and other classics, until this computer > breaks.,, I thought they deleted the We Wuz Snookered thread -- I printed it out and have it on paper. Love, Karen Michael McKenny wrote in message news:a2a5vg$iit$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > Greetings, Paul. > What time warp did these posts come through? You've got several of > them that just showed up here, but they're dated Monday the 14th. As far > as I know it's Friday the 18th.<< Yes, I noticed that, too. When did you post these, Paul? Doing some good stuff, there.:-) Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk Thanks. You make some very good points > replying to originals I don't recall. I'll try to have a look at these > either tonight or tomorrow. I just came on to sneak a peek, and here are > two excellent contributions (from you and from Dermod). > very Best Wishes, M. > > "Paul Hammond" (pahammond@onetel.net.uk) writes: > > Susan Maneck wrote in message > > news:20020113183018.23502.00001978@mb-md.aol.com... > >> >Kicking > >> >somebody out of their religion, without warning or explanation, > > essentially > >> >declaring that the faith that is at the center of their lives is > >> >nonexistent *is* doing something to a person. > >> > >> Dear Karen, > >> > >> Quite frankly I don't think the Faith was at the center of the lives of > > any of > >> the people who were removed from the rolls. > > > > I dispute that, on the basis of the posts of Alison and Michael that > > I have seen. Alison is *still* a Baha'i - the rulings of the nine men on > > the hill cannot change the promptings of her heart. Michael has moved > > on two a different spiritual life - but it's a bit much to complain about > > the future loves of an ex-lover when it was your decision to kick > > him out on his arse and throw his possessions into the street. > > > > The central fact remains, that depriving someone of membership in > > their Faith community is definitely *not* either a "non-punishment" > > (angels on pinheads notwithstanding), *or* "doing nothing". > > > > Fred was not active in his Baha'i > >> community at the time and Alison was largely inactive as well, as she > > admitted > >> to me when I visited her in New Zealand. > > > > Alison was very active in developing her own spiritual life. She used > > to do this by stepping into a local christian church and praying there, > > because she felt at home in such a place. I've read her site, and > > she is still much devoted to Baha'u'llah. > > > > As for Michael, he has admitted here > >> that he had been making contingency plans for an alternative religious > >> community if this one didn't work out at the time he was removed from the > >> rolls. That sure doesn't sound like someone who has made the Faith > > 'central' to > >> their life! > >> > > > > I'm sorry. I read Michael's posts too - I thought he was doing what > > Baha'is are supposed to do - mixing with the followers of all faiths > > and none in a spirit of fellowship, love and understanding. Is he > > wrong because he didn't go into the fellowship of pagans with > > an attitude of arrogant condescention such as you displayed here, > > by characterising pagans as nothing more than "followers of > > a self-made religion"? Just because the Pagans, unlike the > > Mormons, don't have the Shoghi sanctioned seal of approval, > > does that make them automatically wrong? > > > > It's hardly fair to criticise Michael for what he did *after* his > > summary dismissal. Spurned lovers often find new girlfriends. > > > >> I think the real issue here, Karen is that the Faith was central to *your* > >> life. But you weren't kicked out. You left. > >> > > > > LOL - well, at least you're not lining up with all the others to tell > > Karen that she wasn't *really* a Baha'i. It's just Fred, Alison and > > Michael who were never *really* Baha'is in the first place (on the > > UHJ's say so - so it must be true!) Priceless! > > > >> > >> >(I saw a definite change in Alison because of her disenrollment, > >> >too, but of course that was later.) > >> > >> That's not where I saw the change. I observed the change after her return > > from > >> California when she met with several of the dissidents in person. > >> > > > > Ah! Spiritual poison. Maybe they met some Covenant breakers > > out there? > > > >> >Dialogue was the very > >> >soul of tact and obedience compared to the voices we have now. The > >> >administration took believers, people that were essentially on their > > side, > >> >and made them into vocal critics. > >> > >> No, they weren't Karen. I knew them at the time, remember? They were vocal > >> critics of the AO way back in the days of the LA Study Group when they > > would > >> routinely compare it fascist forms of government. I remember how gleefully > > they > >> looked forward to the time when these old fuddy-duddies would die and they > >> would be left running things. > >> > > > > But, is this the kind of tone that appeared withing the pages of > > Dialogue, which were put through the review process, regardless > > of the fact that most of its Editors opposed review? A practical > > example of obedience, I feel. Apart from this, your negative > > appraisal of these people might well be to do with *your* contact > > with spiritual poison from other sources, rather as you think > > Alison was infected by mixing with dodgy semi-Baha'is. Maybe > > you are focusing on the negative because that's what someone > > else wanted you to focus on? > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Freethought110 wrote in message news:a2inas$rm7$1@gnamma.connect.com.au... > Well, that is why California voters need to organize and throw these kooks > in Sacremento responsible for this nightmare out on their tails. Honestly, > how can parents raise their children in an intolerant environment like this > which looks, feels and sounds like a bad version of 1930s Russia? What's > next, kids squeeling on their parents for talking dirty to each other?? I > mean, c'mon already! I'd be happy just to get the dumbass school board we've got out of there. I think part of the paranoia is that there was a successful sexual harrassment suit against the school a few years ago. Susan is right in this instance; a good deal of it is liability-driven. > Also isn't anyone challenging these school administration/board Nazis who > take unwarranted action like in your case on jurisdictional grounds?<< Not only that, we weren't even informed about it -- we found out through another neighbor. I think it was resolved when this kid was put on home study. His parents had other gripes with the school, and the kid had other problems. But our attitude was very much "let's keep an eye on the situation". Plenty of people just go into freak-out mode over stuff like this. But my husband, as you know, is a probation officer and deals with messed up kids all the time, and I trusted his judgement on it. Basically, he felt it was just a matter of an immature 12-year-old with more hormones than brains -- not a budding pervert. As it happened, I had his parents on my doorstep screaming and calling my daughter a liar, and I didn't even know what the hell was going on. A lot of their anger was that they were just plain scared that their kid was going to be tarred for life with some kind of sexual offender label. Surely, > the Big Brother PC hawks in the California school administration/board > system have no legal jurisdiction whatsoever to reprimand and create > problems for a child and/or his parents for what happens in the privacy of > someone's home, regardless of whether the other child in question is a > member of the same school or not.<< A lot of it was the doing of this one teacher, who tried to talk me into pursuing it. I told him it really wasn't the school's business, since it didn't even happen there, and he somehow seemed to think it was. We made it clear that we didn't want this going any further, but he pushed it anyway. So, now, at the very least, it is in this kid's file. If it has gone any further than that, I haven't heard about it. He's still in the neighborhood, so they aren't putting twelve-year-olds in juvenile hall for sexual harrassment just yet. Once those kids are off campus, Big > Brother has no legal claim, and hence the liability argument becomes totally > moot. This makes no sense and I can't believe any judge in any of the 50 > states would even entertain it. If I were a civil rights lawyer in CA, I > would take this case pro bono and unleash all the wrath of the gods upon the > heads of the school administration/board, liability or no liability.<< Yeah, I don't understand their reasoning at all. Although you're wrong about liability stopping when the kids are off-campus -- schools are liable until the kids come home from school i.e. on the bus, and walking home from the bus stop. As I said, I don't think charges of any kind were brought, but there were meetings at the school about it, etc, and two kids that were present and overheard the remark were questioned. They didn't question my daughter about it, or I would have been pissed! What actually happened was this kid was taking off with one of their toys, and when she protested, he said he'd give it back if she took her clothes off. My spunky little girl said "Mom, I wasn't stupid enough to do something like *that*!" She just told him no, and yelled for me, and by time I got out there, the kid had run off. At the time, she didn't even tell me what he'd said, just that he was bothering her and her friends. Because of this, and a few other behavior problems, he's not allowed at our house anymore. But there's no reason to bring the wrath of a raging bureaucracy down on him. > > As for the squeel/tout, may he/she be visited by the karma fairy and get a > dose of their own medicine. The little brat commissar!<< The commissar here was the teacher who wouldn't drop the matter. I think my son told a friend, and either this friend went to the teacher, or the teacher overheard; I'm not sure. But the kids sure learn the terminology -- I set my daughter straight when she started using the term "sexual harrassment" to describe this incident. The kid was just being a stupid jerk with a big mouth; what he did hardly deserves that PC title. On the other hand, she was also told that she must come and tell us if anything like that happens, and to let the adults handle it. A parent needs to walk the middle road between unreasoned hysteria, and just completely dismissing it. Love, Karen > -- > Freethought110 > > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u4pgq3n0l14ba1@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > -- > > www.bahai-faith.tk > > Freethought110 wrote in message > > news:a2icc2$kd9$1@gnamma.connect.com.au... > > > I know you're all playing a game but I have to say that this 'no > > tolerance' > > > business reeks of a sort of PC Orwellianism. The 'real world' does not > > work > > > on such ridiculously acinine pedagogical propositions thought up by some > > > two-bit pseudo-intellectual on some social engineering power trip. But, > > then > > > again, we already knew that PC fascists were making the laws in the > state > > of > > > California and roundly in (rather, out of) control.<< > > > > Dear Nima, > > > > Remember we are talking about a state that doesn't allow people to smoke > in > > bars. You are quite correct in that the "no tolerance" thing can get way > > out of hand -- I have experienced this as a parent, where one of my > children > > was a "victim" and my husband and I insisted that no further action be > taken > > against the "offender"(who is a neighbor), and we were ignored. And the > > incident did not even take place on the school grounds, but in our garage! > > (This kid made an inappropriate remark to my daughter.) All it took was > for > > one of the kids to mention it at school, and it was no longer just a > matter > > between two sets of parents. > > > > However, as a teacher I have to keep my own behind covered. Teachers make > > dozens of decisions every day, and all it takes is one wrong one and your > > career is over. As in so many things, they started out to address very > real > > problems in the schools, and went to the extreme. > > > > Love, Karen > > > > > > > > -- > > > Freethought110 > > > > > What there is a zero tolerance towards weapons. Last spring a > kitchen knife was > > discovered in the back seat of a car in the school parking lot. For > that reason > > the graduating senior was suspended and not allowed to attend > graduation. She > > was the valedictorian. The knife in question was in the back seat > because it > > fell out of a box as she was helping her parents move. > > Is this a Bahai school by any chance? Sounds like the sort of loopy > decision that would be handed down at an Assembly. << No, Dermod, one hears stories like this all the time. The problem with "Zero tolerance" is that it doesn't allow for common sense. Kids have been expelled for having pocket knives that could scarcely cut anything, for having a paring knife in their lunch to cut an apple, for having Midol (a over-the-counter drug for pre-menstrual stress) in their backpack. One girl got into trouble for giving her French teacher a bottle of French wine as a going-away present. Adult teachers are not allowed to smoke anywhere on campus, not even the faculty room. (When I was in high school, there some high schools had smoking areas for the kids, for heaven's sake -- to keep them out of the bathrooms.) There are big signs on the fronts of schools saying "Tobacco Free Zone"; "Violence Free Zone" etc. When I was doing the first phase of my student teaching, a second-grader in our class was suspended for having a knife in his backpack. You can't send your kids to school with anything that even remotely resembles a weapon, or any over the counter drug. You just don't do it. Sometimes it feels like the whole world has gone Puritan since I was a kid -- except that the kids now are more sophisticated about sexual matters, and learn four-letter words at a much younger age. However, on the other hand, I think the schools are a whole lot better academically than they were when I was a kid, with a lot more support and concern for kids who are having trouble. American education was just at its rock-bottom in the 70s. They even require more of the kids coming into college now, than they did when I was a Freshman (1977-78). Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk A kitchen knife is > hardly the sort of weapon carried with premeditated violence in mind - > if violence is the intent, the knife would not be in the back of the > car. There is also a reasonable and legitimate explanation as to why > and reason for its being there. Definitely sounds like the local > Assembly was involved in this. > > And with all of the above we still get reports carried on our news > bulletins of "another shooting" at an American school. No wonder > there's a sentiment on this side of the pond that there are some very > strange folk at loose in the USA - not to mention stranger attitudes > to the carrying of weapons. > > > > Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020122010951.03311.00000583@mb-cu.aol.com... > >here was a successful sexual harrassment > >suit against the school a few years ago. Susan is right in this instance; a > >good deal of it is liability-driven. > > In another state a six-year old boy was suspended for sexually harrassing a > girl. He kissed her. << Yes, I heard about that. Geez, they're doing a lot more harm to the kids by making a big deal about this stuff. Would my daughter have been better off if I had encouraged her to feel like a "victim"? Besides, she did the right thing -- told the kid off, then yelled very loudly for Mom. Heck, I kissed a kid on the bus when I was in Kindergarten.(A young charmer named Billy, who blushed to the very roots of his crew cut.) It didn't end up with anybody talking about sexual harrassment, but my dad said I was too young to kiss yet, and that I could just hold hands if I liked a boy. He said I could kiss when I was 18, which at the time seemed pretty reasonable to me. :-) A lot of kids have crushes at that age, my son did -- it's not at all atypical for five-year-olds. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Freethought110 wrote in message news:a2icc2$kd9$1@gnamma.connect.com.au... > I know you're all playing a game but I have to say that this 'no tolerance' > business reeks of a sort of PC Orwellianism. The 'real world' does not work > on such ridiculously acinine pedagogical propositions thought up by some > two-bit pseudo-intellectual on some social engineering power trip. But, then > again, we already knew that PC fascists were making the laws in the state of > California and roundly in (rather, out of) control.<< Dear Nima, Remember we are talking about a state that doesn't allow people to smoke in bars. You are quite correct in that the "no tolerance" thing can get way out of hand -- I have experienced this as a parent, where one of my children was a "victim" and my husband and I insisted that no further action be taken against the "offender"(who is a neighbor), and we were ignored. And the incident did not even take place on the school grounds, but in our garage! (This kid made an inappropriate remark to my daughter.) All it took was for one of the kids to mention it at school, and it was no longer just a matter between two sets of parents. However, as a teacher I have to keep my own behind covered. Teachers make dozens of decisions every day, and all it takes is one wrong one and your career is over. As in so many things, they started out to address very real problems in the schools, and went to the extreme. Love, Karen > > -- > Freethought110 > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u4pa74r23udp17@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mrs. Bacquet, > > > > > > Before listening any further to this hysterical female I would suggest > > > that you ask her to substantiate her charge that a student is "openly > > > threatening violence." I would do so myself save for the fact that > > > she has kill filed me. > > > > Well, the letter I received did say that you would "knock the pan of that > > tell-tale wee hussey". I'm not familiar with the term "knock the pan", > but > > I assume it is somewhat similar in meaning to the American "clean her > > clock". (Sadly, most American children would probably just say "kick her > > ass", which would get them detention, at very least.) The remark, however, > > was in a letter coming from Dermod Sr. rather than verbally from the > Dermod > > in my class. (Some parents just haven't got the "no tolerance" thing > through > > their heads.) However, I have some reason to suspect that Dermod was > faking > > his father's signature. > > > > Susan is correct, though -- with the no tolerance rule concerning > violence, > > I would have to act upon a remark such as that. If you did indeed give her > a > > thorough pounding off school-grounds, and it was discovered that you made > > such a threat at school and I didn't act on it in some way, then I could > be > > in big trouble. So, at the very least, I'd have to call home. How > seriously > > I took that threat, however, would depend on what grade you were in. Susan > > is so willing to argue with the teacher, I can't help but feel she's a > sixth > > grader. It would also depend on your behavior history. You two have been > > mouthy and quarrelsome, but have no history of physical fighting. Besides, > > she is now saying that she isn't talking to you anymore, which should keep > > the peace for a little while, although it leaves some issues unaddressed. > > > > Sincerely, Mrs. Bacquet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed there is nothing so despicable than the one who starts a > slagging match, gets worsted in it and goes running to tell tales to > teacher! So with the child - so with the adult!<< Yes, I recognize that pattern of behavior, that's why I admonished you *both*. In the classroom, however, I am primarily concerned about creating a proper environment for learning. > > Dermod will be more than happy to write his discipline sentences - God > knows he has enough practice. > > I can assure you however than he will knock the pan of that tell-tale > wee hussey as soon as he sees her off the school property.<< Outside the classroom, you two are no longer my problem and can do what you like. ;-) And it's five minutes until the bell rings. :-) Mrs. Bacquet Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020121134720.02193.00000280@mb-fc.aol.com... > >Outside the classroom, you two are no longer my problem and can do what you > >like. ;-) And it's five minutes until the bell rings. :-) > > Mrs. Bacquet, > > Here you have a student openly threatening violence and all you can say is > outside the classroom it isn't my problem? > > I think we have a lawsuit in the making. << Oh, to the detention room with both of you! I'll call Dermod's parents; I could write him a citation, but I think a call home will be sufficient this time. And you, Susie-Q, can watch your mouth and stop provoking him. I will remind you that if you're caught fighting on school grounds, you will be in as much trouble as he is. Now, you two get going; I've got a class to teach here. Mrs. Bacquet > > warmest, Susan > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > Dear Mrs. Bacquet, > > Before listening any further to this hysterical female I would suggest > that you ask her to substantiate her charge that a student is "openly > threatening violence." I would do so myself save for the fact that > she has kill filed me. Well, the letter I received did say that you would "knock the pan of that tell-tale wee hussey". I'm not familiar with the term "knock the pan", but I assume it is somewhat similar in meaning to the American "clean her clock". (Sadly, most American children would probably just say "kick her ass", which would get them detention, at very least.) The remark, however, was in a letter coming from Dermod Sr. rather than verbally from the Dermod in my class. (Some parents just haven't got the "no tolerance" thing through their heads.) However, I have some reason to suspect that Dermod was faking his father's signature. Susan is correct, though -- with the no tolerance rule concerning violence, I would have to act upon a remark such as that. If you did indeed give her a thorough pounding off school-grounds, and it was discovered that you made such a threat at school and I didn't act on it in some way, then I could be in big trouble. So, at the very least, I'd have to call home. How seriously I took that threat, however, would depend on what grade you were in. Susan is so willing to argue with the teacher, I can't help but feel she's a sixth grader. It would also depend on your behavior history. You two have been mouthy and quarrelsome, but have no history of physical fighting. Besides, she is now saying that she isn't talking to you anymore, which should keep the peace for a little while, although it leaves some issues unaddressed. Sincerely, Mrs. Bacquet > >And disenroll the Diagonal Steam Trap1 > > > > See, he is calling me names teacher! Susie! Dermod! You children are off-task! Get back to work, or you'll be spending recess with me, writing discipline sentences. Mrs. Bacquet > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > > We now have a zero tolerance policy here towards violence in > schools. > > > What is the current status down there now? > > > Thrive, M.<< > > > > Dear Michael, > > > > It's zero tolerance in California, for violence and weapons, sexual > > harrassment, drugs and tobacco. In fact, even verbal teasing is not > as > > tolerated as it was when we were in school. > > That last bit wouldn't suit me at all!<< Well, Dermod, then don't show up for class in an elementary school in California. I'm very strict on the rules, you know. :-) My daughter was telling me that her class doesn't like for me to sub in her class, because I don't let the kids get away with stuff like the other substitute teachers do. I told her that must mean I'm doing my job. :-) Love, Karen > > > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Michael McKenny wrote in message news:a2eiaf$6h7$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > Greetings, Susan. > We now have a zero tolerance policy here towards violence in schools. > What is the current status down there now? > Thrive, M.<< Dear Michael, It's zero tolerance in California, for violence and weapons, sexual harrassment, drugs and tobacco. In fact, even verbal teasing is not as tolerated as it was when we were in school. Love, Karen > > > Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >> I thought he posted that he was done with us, and yet, it seems he is still > >>hanging around and acting pathetic, bawling his eyes out about how he can't > >>love > >>blacks because some black people were mean to him and his family members. > > > > Dear Pat, > > > > You know I got beat up at school all the time too; they were all white kids. Is > > it only getting beat up by black kids that turns you into a mean-spirited > > bigot? > > > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > > Associate Professor of History > > Jackson State University > > > > > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > > Understandably concerned, we did further research on our own, and read > of cases where families had been close for years in the Bahai > community, children grew up together, then when the UHJ declared one > family CB, all ties were severed. Children were forcibly removed from > contact with their lifelong friends. (This social pressure was > apparently used to force the CB to "repent" and rejoin the orthodox > fold.) Some of these CB cases occurred over nothing more than a > request for public discussion and open debate of textual > interpretation -- a person, in some cases a respected university > scholar, questioned the UHJ's official interpretation of texts and > offered carefully researched evidence for consideration of another > point of view. But because of the "UHJ infallibility" issue, they were > declared CB's. When we read these cases, it struck us like a Scopes > Monkey Trial or a Stalinist "counter-revolutionary enemy-of-the-state" > or a Goebbels' book-burning scenario. Dear Becky, If you are thinking of some of the cases that have been publicized over the Internet -- none of the scholars and intellectuals mentioned were actually named as CB. They were just threatened with it, and most resigned their membership in the Faith. That is not to say that on a popular level some people don't regard them as CBs, or pretty close to it. However, the House itself never excommunicated these people. If you want to read an article on what happened, you can look at https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/talisman.html Nobody, to my knowledge, has been named a covenant-breaker without either belonging to, or associating with, one of the known covenant-breaker groups, so there's certainly no need for you to fear that you are regarded as a CB by Baha'is. The people who got into trouble for their Internet activity and who resigned, or were removed from the rolls, are all officially regarded as non-Baha'is. Some, however, still are believers and consider themselves unenrolled Baha'is. Love, Karen https://www.unenrolled-bahai.tk > > What a shame -- some of the CB's were repected authorities in Arabic > language and Islamic culture and the Sufi literature from which > Baha'ullah clearly borrowed. How much light they MIGHT have shed on > the traditions preceeding the Bahai writings, had they only been > allowed to share their knowledge. KNOWLEDGE is not poison -- IGNORANCE > is poison. (I personally gained a much deeper understanding and > appreciation of Baha'ullah's "Valleys" after I read Attars' > "Parliament of the Birds" and other Sufic literature). > > I apologize for being so confrontational and argumentative. I really > have no right -- my husband reminds me that I need to stop visiting > Baha'i message boards. After all, he points out, the Baha'i > organization is behind us -- we are Quakers now. The Quaker community > openly welcomes Baha'ullah's writings and insights, and we can discuss > them freely in that setting without fear of censure. So I will heed > his wisdom and go my way in peace (I can't promise to stop reading -- > but I will refrain from posting). > > Thanks again for your kind response. > > Becky From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:03 PM > Uhm, and just what was the "crime" committed on newsgroup or e-mail > posts? Expressing personal beliefs that were contrary to the Party line? > If it's a crime to say it, there is a Party line. > To Freedom of Thought and Expression, Michael.<< Yes, Michael, you are quite correct -- there really are two issues here. First is that it is quite improper to name the expression of personal beliefs as some kind of wrongdoing. Secondly, however, is that if such expression is going to be deemed worthy of punishment, then clear laws should be passed concerning exactly what opinions are considered off-limits, and what penalty Baha'is espousing them can expect, and there should be a fair due process whereby the accused has the opportunity to defend himself. The lack of clarity, and the arbitrary and personal way that people have been punished is completely unjust. It basically comes down to "We don't like what you say, and if you were *really* a Baha'i, you wouldn't have said such things. And we'll do anything that we damn well please to you in retaliation." It's actually quite creepy, though, thinking of a trial over one's opinions. Somebody being charged with being an anti-theocrat, or believing that women should serve on the UHJ. Instead of hunting for witches, they could go hunting for mutilation theorists. The problem is that they do it anyway, and the first people to get into trouble over it didn't even realize that their opinions were punishable offenses. If they are going punish heresy, they at least ought to be clear on which ideas are heresies. The April 7 letter, and the Birkland letter to Steve Scholl names some. I honestly don't know if there are other opinions which could get people into trouble. And we won't find out, either, until the next person gets nailed, assuming they aren't just disenrolled for having a bad "attitude". That's what so unjust, people just find out after the fact that their opinions are "against the Covenant", or "inconsistent with Baha'i membership". Nobody ever knows until the Inquisition comes knocking. Of course, ideally, there shouldn't even *be* an Inquisition at all. Love, Karen > > "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > >> > >> > And no opportunity for confronting > >> >witnesses, presenting a defense or having an appeal. > >> > >> Why would you need witnesses to internet posts? I'll you need in the posts > >> themselves. << > > > > So why bother having a trial if the crime was caught on videotape? All you > > need is the tape itself. > > > > Karen > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > > I have to confess, though, that I have fewer copies of Michael's posts whereas > I saved virtually everyone else's. The truth is that when my hard drive began > to fill up Michael (along with John Haukness) were the first posts to go. They > were so long-winded and redundant I couldn't see how they could possibly be of > any lasting signficance. Dear Susan, I would be grateful if you (or anyone) could provide me a sampling of Michael's posts from before his disenrollment. It appears that he largely did his posting on the second Talisman, which is not available on the web. (Irfan, as well, but I realize you aren't supposed to share those.) I've got plans for an article that explores Baha'i responses, both liberal and conservative, to the exclusion of women from the UHJ. I think it would be an interesting thing to do a paper on -- a situation where a general principle (equality of women) conflicts with authority (Shoghi Effendi's interpretation), and how adherents to a religion react to that. For this I need a wide sampling from a lot of different people, and I can pretty much get that, but I don't have much from Michael, and I think he's important. This isn't an "issue" paper that's trying to demonstrate one side or the other -- that's already been done; I want to explore how Baha'is deal with it, react to it, explain it, and protest it. I'm also interested in the myths they create about it, like it's because women get emotional during their periods, or they have a higher, more "spiritual" calling, or that it's so men can learn to rule without being oppressors. That kind of thing. I would also be grateful for any documentation that explicitly links Mike's stand on this issue to his disenrollment. So far, it's sort of one of those things "everybody knows", but I don't think the UHJ explicitly mentions it in any of their letters. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > > And what's this stuff Cal keeps saying about your position? He swears up > >and down that you had vowed to educate the gentlemen in Haifa on the meaning > >of "rijal". > > I didn't know he was saying that. Where exactly is he saying such things? As > you know Cal has this habit of forwarding anything juicy he can find to anyone > else. So if I did say anything to that effect, it would have been sent to > someone somewhere. But you can be sure I said so no such thing. My writings on > the issue of women on the House of Justice are a matter of public record.<< Well, yes, that's why I asked. But he has said it a couple of times on another list, and I respond by saying I've never seen you say that -- so I wondered if it was a change of opinion or if Cal somehow misunderstood. > > But I'm guessing you won't be willing to take your article that far. However, a > scholar would be required to do this. "Lay not aside the fear of God, O ye the > learned of the world, and judge fairly"<< I'll write the article that I see fit to write and you can just damn well not yank my chain about it. I'm not a professional academic, as you know, and am unfamiliar with what a "scholar would be required to do". I have, however, had an article pass through three referrees and that will be published in a academic journal, so I don't think I'm doing too badly, even without your advice. Karen > > I know that for some people, the "contradiction" exists, and is apparent in > the following: men and women are equal, but women may not serve on the > Universal House of Justice. > > My response is to question the underlying assumptions upon which this > "contradiction" is seen to rest.<< Dear Robert, This is not an examination of whose assumptions are correct, but of Baha'i responses to the fact that we exclude women from our highest governing body even though we believe ardently in women's equality. The focus of this paper is not going to be the scriptural/interpretive issues, although, of course, I'll have to explain that, but on *people* and how they respond. One common response, for example, even among Baha'is quite loyal to the AO is to find some explanation -- even though there is actually none given in scripture. For example, I used to speculate, because one thing that 'Abdu'l-Baha said was definitely unsuitable for women was violence of any kind, the taking of life even for the sake of justice. So I figured that the UHJ in the future would have to perhaps make those kinds of decisions. It's a reaction, a head-trip we play with ourselves to make it all work out o.k. *That's* what I'm looking at here -- not so much who is right or wrong, but how we deal with it. You're telling me now that if we see contradictions in this, then we are proceding from false assumptions -- assumptions that I would suspect have to do with our common notions of equality. This, too, is a reaction to the situation. Go ahead and tell me what you think. I'm not debating here; I'm gathering material. :-) Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Robert A. Little > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u56alnkv4v6qee@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > I have to confess, though, that I have fewer copies of Michael's posts > > whereas > > > I saved virtually everyone else's. The truth is that when my hard drive > > began > > > to fill up Michael (along with John Haukness) were the first posts to > go. > > They > > > were so long-winded and redundant I couldn't see how they could possibly > > be of > > > any lasting signficance. > > > > Dear Susan, > > > > I would be grateful if you (or anyone) could provide me a sampling of > > Michael's posts from before his disenrollment. It appears that he largely > > did his posting on the second Talisman, which is not available on the web. > > (Irfan, as well, but I realize you aren't supposed to share those.) I've > got > > plans for an article that explores Baha'i responses, both liberal and > > conservative, to the exclusion of women from the UHJ. I think it would be > > an interesting thing to do a paper on -- a situation where a general > > principle (equality of women) conflicts with authority (Shoghi Effendi's > > interpretation), and how adherents to a religion react to that. For this > I > > need a wide sampling from a lot of different people, and I can pretty much > > get that, but I don't have much from Michael, and I think he's important. > > This isn't an "issue" paper that's trying to demonstrate one side or the > > other -- that's already been done; I want to explore how Baha'is deal with > > it, react to it, explain it, and protest it. I'm also interested in the > > myths they create about it, like it's because women get emotional during > > their periods, or they have a higher, more "spiritual" calling, or that > it's > > so men can learn to rule without being oppressors. That kind of thing. > > > > I would also be grateful for any documentation that explicitly links > Mike's > > stand on this issue to his disenrollment. So far, it's sort of one of > those > > things "everybody knows", but I don't think the UHJ explicitly mentions it > > in any of their letters. > > > > Love, Karen > > https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be > >an interesting thing to do a paper on -- a situation where a general > >principle (equality of women) conflicts with authority (Shoghi Effendi's > >interpretation), and how adherents to a religion react to that. > > That is a good articulation of the key issue. If one were to simply center it > around the question of women being allowed to serve on the House it would be > missing the point.<< Thanks. Well, I didn't want to make it the point. The issue itself is a way, sort of a lens I guess, through which I can look at what's going on in the community. It's a touchstone issue that divides liberals and conservatives. The more general issue of the advancement of women is one of great concern to the community as a whole -- I began looking up articles that Baha'is had written on gender issues, and there's actually quite a lot out there. So it's an issue Baha'is care about, both among the intellectual types, and just in our own local communities. But we have this big, glaring exception to that equality, in the governance of our religion and we can't help but respond to that in some sort of way, and I think taking a look at those responses would make an interesting paper. > > >I'm also interested in the > >myths they create about it, like it's because women get emotional during > >their periods, or they have a higher, more "spiritual" calling, or that it's > >so men can learn to rule without being oppressors. That kind of thing. > > Don't forget my *hikmat* argument. :-) > O.K., I'll have to refresh myself on that -- is that in your *Wisdom and Dissimulation* paper? These days I hear you mostly saying that to cast aside the Guardian's interpretation on this issue would be "mutilation", even if the Guardian himself intended to get rid of the exclusion eventually. Just from my own experience, I think that sort of resigned attitude is probably the most common; the "I don't like it, but there's no way to change it." school of thought. Although it's also pretty common to invent an explanation (I did, once upon a time.) to excuse the exclusion. I haven't come to any absolute conclusion; I'm going to have to research this for a while before I do that. And what's this stuff Cal keeps saying about your position? He swears up and down that you had vowed to educate the gentlemen in Haifa on the meaning of "rijal". . > > No, they don't explicitly say that what Michael's issue was. But they refer to > the fact that "a memorandum specially prepared by the Baha'i World > Centre's Research Department on an issue central to his expressed concerns" had > been sent to him. And we have that memorandum.<< O.K., is that on Jonah's site? I think I have the letter Michael received in response to his initial letter to the UHJ, which IIRC pretty much just restated the official position. > > Since the issue, is as you correctly state, a question of authority, it would > be obscuring that issue to focus on the question of women's exclusion from the > House. As the House wrote: "He has > made it unmistakably clear that he does not accept the nature of the authority > conferred in Baha'u'llah's Covenant on either the Guardianship or the Universal > House of Justice, in important areas > of belief." But even that would not in itself have caused Michael to be removed > from the rolls had he not insisting on publicly challenging the authority of > Baha'i institutions. << Yes, but caring about women's equality is a very "Baha'i" thing to do; it's just that acceptance of authority comes first. The UHJ says "jump"; we say "How high?", even if it contradicts basic principles promoted in the Writings. It's a contradiction, a thing Baha'is must grapple with. The issue of women's service is not the only one where this is the case, but it's very clear-cut, has been discussed a great deal, and was key in one of the disenrollments. So I think it's useful as a way of examining recent developments in the community, and just Baha'i "culture" in general. > > But I'll see what I can find of those old postings when I get the chance. But I > have an article to Brill which is two weeks overdue. << O.K. thanks. Love, Karen Dear Dermod, I actually worked today, in what we call a "Special Day Class", which is learning-disabled kids. It actually was quite a positive and enriching experience, and I did better than I thought. I am, however, pooped out, so I'm going to address this issue in further detail. (I realize that Brian has asked me a question about it which I haven't yet answered.) However, I did want to respond. > There is no concept of the "trial" in Bahai judicial process. Rick > did state that the process, such as it is, should include at least one > meeting with the "accused" at which, presumably he be informed of the > nature of the complaint and result of the assembly's investigation of > the evidence, if any.<< Well, what I don't understand is why Baha'i defenders of the AO are so contemptuous of a system of justice which guarantees specific rights to the accused, as opposed to the investigate-interrogate-intimidate system of our Institution of the Learned, and the arbitrary and unchallengeable edicts that come down from Haifa. Another interesting waffle is that conservative Baha'is are sure that the BAO is superior to the other governmental systems of the world and can't wait for the day when it displaces them in a world theocracy, but the minute you start talking about the just treatment of members of the Baha'i Faith, they all of a sudden reduce themselves to a voluntary religious organization that has the right to determine membership requirements. I suppose that when Baha'is are ruling a country, membership will stilll be "voluntary" even though it's loss means you can't vote in your own country's elections. Of course, the question is quite theoretical, because nobody will ever voluntarily give up their rights to freedom of expression and due process, just so they can have the privelege of being ruled by Baha'i institutions. > I saw one process where the accused never saw evidence, never was told > a complaint had been made and never met with an assembly at all. All > he got was a letter from National telling him that if it received but > another complaint that he had used threatening behaviour, his > administrative rights would be removed.<< I hear over and over again from people that appeal is useless, because the NSA invariably relies on the local officials' word -- often the very people that are being complained about. But the myth that "if the LSA makes a bad decison you can always appeal" is so prevalent that people are consistantly blamed for either not fighting their way to the very top, or just acquiescing with a smile on their face, even though their hearts are broken, and in occasional cases, their lives ruined. As I've said before, you can be a devoted believer for a lifetime, but if you can't take the shit that's dished out, you will be written off by your fellows as a spiritual wimp. > > > > > >As if when > > > >you ask why you're in jail, the guard walks away from your > > > >cell, phones up your mother, and tells her. > > > > > > Not a good analogy. A better analogy would be if you got thrown in > jail > > and > > > your mother called up and asked to know what the charges were and > they > > tell > > > her. The House would have given Michael more specifics as well had > he > > written > > > to them directly without posting his message on the internet. This > is > > > especially so given the fact that Michael had already been told it > was > > > inappropriate to try and reverse House decisions by posting > objections on > > the > > > internet. And it was already well known from the lists which > Michael was > > > participating on, that the House would not answer letters written > to them > > in > > > this fashion. > > This is bullshit! The DST states that the House would have given > specifics, if asked. It should have given them without being asked > and should not have given them to anybody else in lieu of or in > preference to Michael.<< One of the basic rights of the accused: The right to know what the charges are. > > This is the practice of a body that piously and hypocritically eschews > all forms of "backbiting". They wouldn't recognise it if it bit them > in the ass! > > Of course the same would apply to the DST - what a gall the dear lady > has to participate in this thread when she has kill-filed two of her > opponents, including one whose behaviour is the main topic. Her > Rectitude deigns not to hear contrary views - the Dowager Empress of > TRB is not amused at the prospect. As this is the Supreme Body of > Dissent, perhaps we should bar her from it, as a woman is banned from > that other Supreme Body. You, me darlin', shall be exempt from this > ban; everybody would agree that you be treated as an honorary man! Lol!! You're not the only person to recently call me a "rijul" (or whatever the singular of "rijal" is). Dermod, honey, I'm just following the instructions of Him who said that His female followers should "arise in a masculine way." Love, Karen > > > > And no opportunity for confronting > >witnesses, presenting a defense or having an appeal. > > Why would you need witnesses to internet posts? I'll you need in the posts > themselves. << So why bother having a trial if the crime was caught on videotape? All you need is the tape itself. Karen > > >As if when > >you ask why you're in jail, the guard walks away from your > >cell, phones up your mother, and tells her. > > Not a good analogy. A better analogy would be if you got thrown in jail and > your mother called up and asked to know what the charges were and they tell > her. The House would have given Michael more specifics as well had he written > to them directly without posting his message on the internet. This is > especially so given the fact that Michael had already been told it was > inappropriate to try and reverse House decisions by posting objections on the > internet. And it was already well known from the lists which Michael was > participating on, that the House would not answer letters written to them in > this fashion. > > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > Right. They told him almost nothing about the reasons for his > expulsion. In the original letter it said "behaviour" and > I think one other similar word. Imagine if the police threw someone > in jail and when they ask why they're there, they're told > "because of your behaviour". And no opportunity for confronting > witnesses, presenting a defense or having an appeal.<< Dear Catherine, It was "attitude and behavior"; the letter to Alison Marshall said the exact same thing. Not only was their "behavior" considered unacceptable, but they both have been convicted of having a bad attitude. If that were an actual law out in the real world, any sane court would rule it "void for vagueness." Love, Karen > > Well, it was wrong not to tell him, but it was extremely > inappropriate to tell me things that may have been private > and that hadn't even been told to him yet. As if when > you ask why you're in jail, the guard walks away from your > cell, phones up your mother, and tells her. It felt > strange to me to be put in that position. > > > -- > Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca > "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 > million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Dear Milissa, What we were talking about was Alison's perception of the events that followed her disenrollment -- whether their motivations were quite as dark as she perceived them, I have no idea. She was going through an emotional time, which was also part of my original point, and she may have seen people as more threatening and ill-intentioned than they actually were. At the time all of this happened, I had only been on Talisman for a few months, and did not know what the "typical" atmosphere was. But what it seemed to me that mostly what was happening was that a succession of conservatives showed up in order to take Juan on. The place has a very different feel to it nowadays. Love, Karen www.bahai-faith.tk Milissa wrote in message news:df0d6959.0201241301.69d97c2@posting.google.com... > Hi Karen and Susan-- > > As someone who was actually a moderator of Talisman, let me had a few > cents. > (major snippage) > > > > >Her perception was fed by the fact that conservatives flocked to Talisman > > > >after hearing about her explusion. > > My perception was that there was an upswing in membership. Whether or > not they were conservatives or not, I haven't a clue. Many signed up > anonymously. > > There are two ways to perceive this fact and I actually think both are > right. There were definitely those who wanted something to say about > Alison's case but I am more optimistic....I think many just wanted > some information! They can get the AO's side quite easily. I was > pleased that many people who were never on Talisman decided to do so > to check it out for themselves. If their suspicions were confirmed or > overturned, I don't know. But I look at it as a sign that they wanted > to hear both sides. Maybe I am too optimistic? > > > > Why would they do that given the fact that the list became moderated > > precisely > > > to keep certain people from posting. << > > Actually I know of only a couple of individuals who were banned > outright, but it had to do with past grievances, real or perceived, > and not ideology. I know this for a fact because I had to sign up a > few people whose ideology I absolutely cannot stand. But as long as > they agreed to follow the list rules, I had to let them on. > > Peace, > Milissa www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020124004725.14181.00000372@mb-md.aol.com... > > > >Her perception was fed by the fact that conservatives flocked to Talisman > >after hearing about her explusion. > > Why would they do that given the fact that the list became moderated precisely > to keep certain people from posting. << And what evidence do you have that the list was moderated to "keep certain people from posting"? I subscribed soon after the change to the moderated format, but the story I've always heard was that Talisman-2 had degenerated into endless flame-wars, repetitive posts, and a couple of people who posted dozens of posts a day, to the point that there were only about 35 subscribers left. There have always been conservatives and defenders of the administration on Talisman. > > >That they came to Talisman specifically to hear. > > I would sure like to see the evidence for this. I frankly, don't believe it. At > most they may have started posting more. And I'm betting even that was more > reactive than anything else. << No, there were definitely new conservative subscribers who showed up shortly after the news of Alison's disenrollment broke. Some of them now have left, or just aren't posting any more -- but there was a definite upswing in the presence of AO-defenders in the spring of 2000. It seemed to me, at the time, as a new subscriber, that Talisman was mostly a lot of shouting across the liberal/conservative divide -- one reason why I was glad to have Zuhur as a break from it. In fact, what I mostly remember was a series of people whose reason for showing up seemed to be in order to cross swords with Juan. Talisman isn't much that way any more, though. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > I'd say her feelings went quite back and forth on it. Not long after > > posting that message, she gave up her position as moderator on Talisman > > because of the emotional strain -- and was especially upset by the flock of > > conservatives that settled in to discuss her case. She compared them to > > vultures, and felt she was being dehumanized and reduced to a "case". > > That was not my perception of the situation.<< We aren't talking about either your or my perception, Dave, but Alison's. It seemed to me that the > folks who wanted to use Alison as a case were those who had a bone to > pick with the AO. Her "case" was (and still is) paraded around as a > weapon to club the AO and its supporters. The folks that you describe > as conservative were not vultures.<< Her perception was fed by the fact that conservatives flocked to Talisman after hearing about her explusion. Heck, they were the ones under > attack.<< So, that's why they came to Talisman? So they could expose themselves to attack? I don't see how conservatives were being attacked here -- the objections expressed were because we felt Alison was treated unjustly, and it was a big shock to us all, because Alison is very well-loved among Baha'i liberals. I for one expressed sympathy for Alison but could not help > but defend the AO from the kind of attacks dished out by its critics.<< That they came to Talisman specifically to hear. > They swung Alison like a sword and the defenders of the AO parried the > blow. If Alison got hurt it was from being stuck against the shields > of those blocking the attack.<< Alison has never expressed any kind of dismay over publication of her case; she has done her own on her website. My article about her, which was published much afterwards, in December 2000, was approved of by her. > > This is what critics fail to see. Those who speak out about "the > injustices of the AO" think that they are trying to help. The > intention is to get the AO boosters to see the wrongs being committed. > Trouble is that only real effect is that the Baha'i Faith gets bashed > - Baha'u'llah's message gets bashed.<< Where Baha'u'llah's message gets bashed the worst is by the extremists -- I don't blame run-of-the-mill conservatives so much on that, but people like Effy and Dusty on Beliefnet have driven seekers away. I have had people specifically come to me to ask questions about Baha'u'llah and what He wrote, because they figure they'll get the straight scoop without shoving problematic areas under the carpet -- since I'm known to be a believer who is a critic of the administration. > > What we need is reconciliation. In another post you said that you > were getting the hang of promoting ideas on the internet. That is not > what is needed right now. << I think ideas are important. You know what people say to me? They say "I thought I was the only Baha'i who ever thought or felt like this". Do you know what that means, Dave, to have that isolation end? We don't create Baha'i liberals out here; we discover them. They already exist, and it doesn't take persuasion. It just takes being visible, which wasn't possible before the Internet. Dialogue was a very popular magazine in its brief life, remember that. It's what the authorities fear. What is needed is a decrease in the volume > of the debate and an increase in trying to understand the Writings. > That is the only place a solution will be found.<< Yes, but any time someone comes up with an understanding that rocks the status quo, the debate begins anew. And *that's* what it comes down to. All liberals ever wanted was co-existence in the Faith; that's what the AO won't allow, in the name of the "Covenant", Dave. It's no good just telling Baha'i liberals that all would be well if they'd stop being liberals. Love, Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: [Sad to See Withdrawals] Date: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:29 AM -- www.bahai-faith.tk Dave Fiorito wrote in message news:f0853486.0201301156.7039d19c@posting.google.com... > Karen, > > But why leave because of other peoples' flaws? << The fact is, Dave, that they do. You can sit there and blame them all you want for that, but this is what happens, and it happens to half the people who come in. How miserable ought a person to be before they are *not* blamed for leaving? I hear from people in poor health pressured and scoffed at because they can't participate in community projects, a man whose daughter was told, two weeks after her fifteenth birthday she wasn't welcome at Feast unless she signed a card -- which meant this single father must either leave his children alone or not go to Feast, either. Another who is desperately looking for a way to honorably *not* be on the LSA, because he is always a minority of one and can't support their decisions, and is thinking of withdrawing as the only way out. How hard are they supposed to fight to belong to a community that doesn't give a damn about them, Dave? Never mind, Dave, I know you don't really give a damn about them, either. They are supposed to waste their lives in fruitless appeals, or they are just spiritual wash-outs and don't deserve to be Baha'is. That's how you want them to spend their lives, in order to address these things. For most of them, it just isn't worth it. And you know what? I don't blame them a bit. That's why they talk to me, Dave. Because I don't blame them. Karen The Baha'i community > is where Baha'u'llah wants us to be. > > Sure there are problems and growing pains but isn't that why the > community exists in the first place? To help us all grow and learn? > > How are we going to grow and learn if folks who believe in Baha'u'llah > give up on His community? > > I understand that Rod is upset that certain exhortations have not been > implemented to their fullest, and I know that others are upset that > certain temporary measures are still in place. To me the key is in > following Baha'u'llah. He gave us a mechanism for the application of > His laws. He gave us a system of administration to be the guide in > our growth. He gave us consultation, His Most Holy Book, and the > Universal House of Justice. > > Yes, we all want the Baha'i community to be perfect, but we can't just > pitch a fit and split when we see flaws. We need to work together > within the protections assured to us by steadfastness in the Covenant. > > Karen - you and I are both believers in Baha'u'llah. Why is it then > that we cannot be a part of the same community? Why can't we study > the Word of God together and explore that Vast Ocean? > > I have been in Baha'i cyberspace since 1996 and the one thing that I > have not been able to truly understand is the impulse to leave the > community based on disagreement rather than faith in Baha'u'llah. > > Maybe Americans are just so used to Church hopping that we can't just > deal with the fact that when we live in a Baha'i community that is the > only one we can go to. We can't just jump to a more appealing Baha'i > Community. The one we have is the the one where we are - and that iis > it. I don't get it. > > Cheers, > > Dave Very well said, Rod. I only have to had to my own observation is that it is very rare to find someone who leaves because they decide that Baha'u'llah is not for real, although I have run into one or two like that. Almost always, it's that they find the community is not for real. Using the marriage analogy -- the one you fall in love with is not the one you live with once you've made the commitment. Even people on their way out express a wistful fondness for those beautiful Writings that seduced them into an abusive relationship. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk -- www.bahai-faith.tk Curious wrote in message news:3c579e3d@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > Doctor Electron wrote in message > news:nfld5u8vehbb860l23piiinrmadl2fkkp2@4ax.com... > > > > > What are the major factors involved when a person joins a religious > > group and then withdraws from it? > > > > Dear Doc > > I would be so bold as to suggest that the answers to the above are as > diverse/illusory/conscious/subconscious/environmental/nature/nurture/biochem > ical > as "Why did we get married in the first place and how come you shit me > now"? ;-) > > In both cases (embracing faith or partner) I have grave doubts about the > role that 'intellect might play....there seems to be a great deal of > desperation/loneliness and plain old "letting the tail wag the dog" > desire in much relationship formation. > > This, for me, is evidenced by the number of people who will embrace 'Any old > tart of a belief system' as long as they are mutually embraced and respected > by > that community of belief. I have watched a sane/intelligent/stable friend > embrace > the 'Urantians' (Did you know Doc that Jesus lives on a not too distant > planet > and that angels have wings to prevent burn up when entering the Earths > atmosphere?;-) > Last week I got an Email from another old mate who after twenty years is > still happily ensconced > in Scientology......I know he has read 'Bare Faced Messiah'....I made him > read it. > > A loving, accepting, supporting, just and embracing community will meet the > human need > and transcend the inadequacies (or even stupidities) of the groups > cosmology. > Conversely, the truth (even Divine Truth) is a poor substitute for love and > community. > > All relationships are tested by the passing of the honeymoon period and the > diminishment of passion. (See 'When The Well Runs Dry', ) > Love is not that romantic emotion...it is "the preparedness to 'do' for the > other" often in spite of the prevailing emotion. > Love is tested at the point of argument/disagreement/misunderstanding... > "Is my partner/community of faith fair in its treatment? Does it listen or > lecture? Does it explain or punish without explanation?" > > My diagnosis Doc is that it is a quarter to twelve, humanity is two thirds > cut > and desperately lonely....the old tart Urantian/Pentecostal Bar Maid looks > very > attractive and certainly seems willing/embracing/understanding/accepting. > > The Baha'i community stands on the corner outside, looking beautiful in her > terraces and all, singing principles sweet and true. Mutton dressed as Lamb? > "Frigid" say some who have known her. > "A domineering transvestite patriarch" say others. > "Demands all and gives nothing in return" say some. > > Me? I went out with her for a decade plus and found that when (the > inevitable) > misunderstandings and arguments occur she is the worst of 'Passive > Agressives'... > fickle, inconsistent, punitive. She comes from a family who's domestic > culture demands > "Quiet!......The neighbors might hear!" as the central pillar of 'Unity'. > She speaks of consultation and community as if she knows them > intimately....she is a stranger > to both. (See Abdul Baha on True Consultation, See M Scott Peck on True > Community). > > One definition (Pecks) of True Community is "A body of people that have > learnt to fight > gracefully".....There is no 'grace', beauty, finesse or fairness in the > Baha'i 'Star Chamber'. > > > Yea......I loved her Doc.....She was the only organization I ever joined and > I'm sad about > the separation. > > But I'll tell ya this buddy....I've been out with some tough broads- Welfare > Organizations, > The Department of Corrections, Education Department, Building Industry and > Film Industry... > Girls with a reputation as "Ball Busters". > > I have never encountered anything as heartbreakingly unfair as what passes > for Justice/Due Process > within the Baha'i community. > > You carry Morphine Doc?.......or do you prescribe "It's all just a spiritual > test";-) > > Rod. > > > >Juan had nothing to do with it, other than pointing me towards this > >journal's online counterpart, which is where I expected to be published. > > Dear Karen, > > I'm afraid you are being a little naive here. Your paper will have to go > through a review process right? Now who do you suppose they will ask to review > it? << The article I'm coming out with has already passed review. All I know about the reviewers is that they were all non-Baha'is and that one of them was vacationing in Europe at the time the editor sent him the article. I also know that it's tough to find non-Baha'is that know enough about the Faith to feel comfortable reviewing an article on it. If my article was sent to a Baha'i reviewer, it would have every chance of being shot down for entirely ideological reasons. This editor was aware that this could be a problem and assured me that it wouldn't happen. Karen > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > >A heavy-duty > >propaganda piece is pretty unlikely to be published, especially for a person > >without postgraduate work in related fields. > > Well, Juan got away with it in his JSSR article. But then he had credentials > and you don't. On the other hand, he is likely to help you past those barriers.<< Juan had nothing to do with it, other than pointing me towards this journal's online counterpart, which is where I expected to be published. It was the editor who, after looking at my "one-sided" Themestream articles, invited me to write for the academic journal, much to my surprise. In fact, Juan submitted an article there, and was rejected, so I don't see how he'd be very effective at getting me past any barriers. He hasn't had time for the past several months to be anybody's mentor, with the 9/11 aftermath keeping him quite stressed and busy. Juan has not yet even seen my article. Karen https://www.themestream-bahai.tk > > So you are saying that those who might be best informed as to the facts you are > dealing with were automatically excluded. Interesting. No, what I'm saying is that those who might possibly shoot down what I was trying to say because it doesn't jive with their opinions were excluded. Otherwise, I might as well sign a card and submit my stuff to the NSA's censorship system, for all the chance I'd have. When you've got otherwise educated people out there like McMullen, who seriously suggests that there is really no such thing as a Baha'i fundamentalist or Baha'i liberal (it's just those *other* religions that have them, I guess), and who would shoot stuff down over that kind of nonsense -- no, no way could an enrolled Baha'i reviewer be trusted. I want to be judged on my work, not because I don't meet somebody's version of politically correct. It's an unfortunate fact that almost all people who are experts on the Baha'i Faith are either Baha'is or ex-Baha'is. If you're going to get somebody neutral, you're almost going to have to find someone less knowledgeable. It isn't exactly fair either to say that all stuff on the Baha'i Faith must be submitted to people who are committed to defending the status quo. Of course, I have no idea about the background of the people who reviewed my article. All I know is that they weren't Baha'is. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020128010849.02518.00000104@mb-cg.aol.com... > > I also know for sure that two of the three reviewers > >were neither Baha'is nor ex-Baha'is. > > So one is an ex-Bahai and two others are largely ignorant. > > >What is this anyway? The opening salvo on the character assassination > >that's going to occur because I've got an article published? > > Nope. But I sure got a lot of interesting information from you as to the > process by which this is being done. No, you didn't. You're making assumptions about something going on behind the scenes, and no doubt intend on twisting my words and lying about it. Some reviewers out there must be neutral, or Juan would never get stuff published. What you're saying is that all articles about the Baha'i Faith ought to be put into the hands of people who have a vested interest in making sure any criticisms of the Faith are deep-sixed. Karen > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > Anyway, I once had a discussion with one of my religion professors and > when this issue came up he actually laughed at me. He laughed at me! > And said, "Milissa I thought you were smarter than to join a group > like that." I'm sorry, but the practice of review makes Baha'is look > like a joke. And it makes Baha'u'llah look soooo bad. What doesn't > the UHJ understand this???<< Dear Milissa, They know -- they have mentioned it in letters about this. But they don't care. What they've said is that it is a Baha'i academics job to present prepublication review "as a species of peer review" to their peers. What they really don't seem to realize is that no academic peer is going to think much of the idea of having one's work pass through a vetting process imposed by a religious body to make sure that religion is presented with "dignity and accuracy". But what it comes down to, Milissa, is that control is more important to them than the good name of the Faith in academic circles. How they think they are going to simultaneously attract "people of capacity" is beyond me. There is also an element of paranoia about the whole review thing. Again and again, the UHJ points out that things are must be reviewed because various unnamed "enemies" of the Faith will grow in number, that "opposition" will eventually become "universal", and therefore this vulnerable and tender plant must be protected from "the malice of its enemies and unwisdom of its friends". Yes, I know it doesn't make any sense, but that's the spiel we're given. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Peace, > Milissa > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message news:... > > > > > > > > So you are saying that those who might be best informed as to the > > facts you are > > > > dealing with were automatically excluded. Interesting. > > > > > > Even more pissed off by the fact that outside editors know and accept > > > the fact that BIGS are biased and incapable of being objective about a > > > piece sent for review.<< > > > > Yep, word is getting around. And that has happened only quite recently, > > between the time Juan's article was rejected, and I contacted them. > > > > Not the issue. Only whether you fully present *all* the pertinent facts. You > yourself told me you wouldn't publish something that would hurt the liberals > even if it were true. I never said any such thing, you God-damn liar!! > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > Karen, > > You also included any documentation that might hurt these guys. You made that > very clear. You said you simply wouldn't write the article if it came to that. I was talking about documentation that would prove them guilty of real wrong-doing. If I thought that they were, I probably wouldn't even be here. I'm still waiting for that documentation, Susan. I don't even believe it exists, because if it did, it would have been given to me a long time ago. If there was *any* skeletons in the closet, the AO-defenders would fall all over themselves making it public -- of that I'm very certain. Karen > > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > Dear Dermod, Yes, that's *exactly* what's going on. One small fragment of a conversation that's being turned into a pretzel and presented as proof of how lacking in ethics we are. It's a level of dishonesty that just leaves me very nearly speechless. Although, maybe I should take some comfort in that maybe now that I'm being published, I've got them worried. There is, something, after all, in being a worthwhile target. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Dermod Ryder wrote in message news:a33hda$15b00c$8@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de... > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u59rfc1t185a11@corp.supernews.com... > > > Hi Karen, > > > > > > You also included any documentation that might hurt these guys. > You made > > that > > > very clear. You said you simply wouldn't write the article if it > came to > > that. > > > > I was talking about documentation that would prove them guilty of > real > > wrong-doing. If I thought that they were, I probably wouldn't even > be here. > > I'm still waiting for that documentation, Susan. I don't even > believe it > > exists, because if it did, it would have been given to me a long > time ago. > > If there was *any* skeletons in the closet, the AO-defenders would > fall all > > over themselves making it public -- of that I'm very certain. > > Stuff like schism promoters on Zuhur and agents provocateurs urging > Martin to get himself declared a CB. This is "Harry Potter" stuff - > pure fantasy! Every time the DST or her clones start the > disinformation they wind up with egg on their faces and doggy doo-doo > on their keyboards. > > You can get all sorts of stuff and nonsence from Dave F., Robert, Pat > K., Brian and the rest of the conservative/fundamentalist wing of the > BF here - but, by God, at least you are talking to honest and > honourable people who do not stoop to dirty tricks of stealing and/or > misquoting private correspondence. It's a joy to discourse and a > pleasure to disagree with them. Being honest and up-front they are a > credit to the religion they espouse whereas this trash that "sneers > without sneering" is, unfortunately, for the BF, that which is most > pleasureably looked upon by the powers that be. > > Put the garbage in the sin bin where she belongs - tis probably the > best > service you could render to mankind at this (or any other) time! > > As ever, > > Dermod. > > > > > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020128000023.02518.00000071@mb-cg.aol.com... > > > >I never said any such thing, you God-damn liar!! > > Yeah, you did Karen. You insisted you would never turn against your friends and > use information you found out against them. I was talking about private confidences, and you know that. I was not talking about information I gained through research, that I would use for publication. By God, Nima was right about you! That's why I never trust anything you say about the Baha'i liberals, because when I get to the bottom of it, it always turns out to be twisted. And if you think for one minute that you're going to get away with twisting what I say like that, you've got another thing coming! Face it, you've lost! I'm being published and I'm going to keep writing, and you are just going to have to live with the fact that I'm going to say things in those articles you don't like. Like the truth, for instance. Karen (who is nostalgic for the days when Nima used to wipe the floor with your sorry ass!)\ > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > Do note that the DST is doing what she accuses Michael of doing - > twisting her obvious meaning of words. > > If I were you I would put her in the sin bin. She's a mean two-faced > piece of noxious bio waste!<< Done, at least until my article comes out, when I will no doubt have to do some defending. And I agree with your assessement. I just had the realization that the only reason she has ever talked to me is so she can get things to use against me. All those heartfelt pleas over on Baha'i Studies to search my conscience about what I would do, and I give an honest and thoughtful answer, and she twists it into a pretzel and beats me with it. Like she ever really gave a fat rat's ass about the state of my soul! If that's the way she's going to be, then there's no reason at all to have a conversation with her like a real human being. Adieu, Dragon Lady! Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > As ever, > > Dermod. > > > > Karen (who is nostalgic for the days when Nima used to wipe the > floor with > > your sorry ass!)\ > > > > > > > > Susan Maneck > > > Associate Professor of History > > > Jackson State University > > > > > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, > with no > > time > > > left to start again . . " > > > Don McLean's American Pie > > > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > > > > > > > > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Randy Burns wrote in message news:eQf68.601$kD4.368569@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net... > Paul Hammond wrote in message > news:3c59857b@212.67.96.135... > > > > Yes, this is clear - but the "review" that Karen and Susan were > > talking about was the review that Karen's article will have > > to go through as determined by the editor of the publication. > > > > Being an "unenrolled" Baha'i, her article no longer has to be > > submitted for that first, Baha'is only review. > > I hadn't thought of it that way, Paul. But of course you are right that if > Karen were still enrolled none of her articles would have seen the light of > day.<< Not only that, Randy, but I would have certainly got a little visit or phone call from a member of the Institution of the Learned, or been summarily booted like Alison and Michael. That Susan thinks that only enrolled Baha'is have the right to do academic peer review on an article like mine is just the wish to impose the same kind of censorship on somebody who isn't even a member of the Baha'i community any more. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk They certainly wouldn't have passed Baha'i Review as they are > unsuitable topics! And any Baha'i who writes about the faith must have the > articles pass Baha'i review first and foremost before submitting them to > academic review. Not an incentive to join up to the Faith is it? > > Cheers, Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > So you are saying that those who might be best informed as to the > facts you are > > dealing with were automatically excluded. Interesting. > > Even more pissed off by the fact that outside editors know and accept > the fact that BIGS are biased and incapable of being objective about a > piece sent for review.<< Yep, word is getting around. And that has happened only quite recently, between the time Juan's article was rejected, and I contacted them. > > Devotees of cultic behaviour will be impressed that the expression of > non-BIGS approved opinion is now verging on factual error.<< Well, this particular journal specializes in the study of cultic behavior, and so is probably used to it. Can you imagine Scientologists trying to claim that nobody except adherents of their religion have a right to review articles written about them? What a scam! Well, geez, ex-Baha'is have an ax to grind and non-Baha'is don't know anything, so all that's left are Baha'is who will make damn sure that a positive picture is presented. What's an assistant professor at a University doing supporting that kind of unethical racket? Oh, and I'll make sure the editor of this journal knows that these kinds of slams against his integrity are being made by an assistant professor at a university. > > Shrewd observers will note the catchphrase "Interesting!" Yes! You've > got it! Just like that Nazi soldier who used to pop out of the bushes > at the end of Rowan and Martin's Laugh In from the later sixties.,< Yes, that used to be the last show before bedtime when I was a kid. DST is being very tricky here -- using this word to imply all sorts of suspicious things are going on, yet if she's called on it she can claim not to have said anything. Very interesting, indeed. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk I don't know who the referees were. You know I don't know who they were, because you know very well that I would not be given that information. The editor picked them, and I had nothing to do with it. All that happened was that I expressed some anxiety about the article falling into the hands of biased people, and he assured me that it would not because none of the reviewers were Baha'is. I also know for sure that two of the three reviewers were neither Baha'is nor ex-Baha'is. That's all I know. So you can just take your innuendo and stuff it! What is this anyway? The opening salvo on the character assassination that's going to occur because I've got an article published? Of course, I can't get an article published, it all has to do with some behind the scenes machinations on my behalf. Next thing you'll be doing is accusing me of sleeping with the editor. Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020128000836.02518.00000079@mb-cg.aol.com... > > > >No, what I'm saying is that those who might possibly shoot down what I was > >trying to say because it doesn't jive with their opinions were excluded > > Who 'might possibly'? What kind of criteria is that? Anyone who is an expert on > anything 'might possibly' shoot down someone else's paper because it doesn't > jive with their own opinions. So do we arrange to exclude those with different > opinions and call that academic review? > > >When you've got otherwise > >educated people out there like McMullen, who seriously suggests that there > >is really no such thing as a Baha'i fundamentalist or Baha'i liberal (it's > >just those *other* religions that have them, I guess > > I see. So a sociologist who doesn't buy into this Manichean world view should > be automatically excluded. > > > I want to be judged on my work, not because I don't > >meet somebody's version of politically correct. > > It sounds like your judges were already hand-picked to be either unqualified to > judge your work or actively hostile towards the Faith. That's very convenient. > > >I have no > >idea about the background of the people who reviewed my article. All I know > >is that they weren't Baha'is. > > Is that to say, they could be ex-Baha'is? > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020127131056.14173.00001392@mb-md.aol.com... > >You know, the great thing about > >> being kill-filed is not only, that your argument has been deemed > >> irrefutable, but also that the "killer", having been "caught on" > >> reading from the one "killed", doesn't dare do it again! > > Unless someone else is quoting from your posts. :-) > > > > >Or being accused of deliberate dishonesty! > > For the record, Karen. I don't think you are being deliberately dishonest. I > think you are fooling yourself. << Bite my ass, Dragon Lady! You were trying to tell me how to write my paper, and then saying I wasn't being truthful if I didn't follow your instructions. Not even Juan gets to tell me how to write -- and he never even tries to do that. If he did, though, he'd be told exactly where to get off. Your assumptions are unfounded, and you know very well that in writing a paper like this that the point isn't to "blame" anyone. A heavy-duty propaganda piece is pretty unlikely to be published, especially for a person without postgraduate work in related fields. I have to be doubly sure of my facts, my documentation, and the soundness of my arguments. In my forthcoming article, I discuss Baha'i attitudes towards covenant-breakers, tracing it straight back to 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Will & Testament, because that's what's historically accurate. I will do the same with this article. But for damn sure I have no obligation to justify myself to you. Karen > > warmest, Susan > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > www.bahai-faith.tk Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3c5e7033@212.67.96.135... > > Alma Engels wrote in message > news:IYr78.7976$3E5.652699@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > Susan I knew about the exclusion too. But its impact did not register > > immediately. And I remain a Baha'i even now. But I have heard of a > number > > of cases where a woman left the Faith almost immediately because of this. > > > > You mean, as soon as they found out? I guess, it bothers you, and > you have to decide whether it bothers you enough to leave, or > whether you can live with it. If you decide you can live with it, it > probably isn't something that will ever cause you to leave, but will > become a little niggle in the back of the head.<< Dear Paul, This is exactly right. I've run into a number of people who didn't find out that women were excluded from the House of Justice until after they were enrolled -- myself included. One ex-Baha'i called it "the first clue" that something was wrong in the Faith. It is a "niggle" that sort of hangs there; it doesn't seem worth throwing the whole Faith out for, but it bugs you. The worst thing about the exclusion to me is its blatant hypocrisy -- it wouldn't be nearly as bad if we didn't go around trumpeting equality of the sexes as a basic Baha'i principle. . > > I think that, on a local and national level - certainly in Britain - > equality > between the sexes is *practiced* as well as preached. I think that > the men only UHJ is more of symbolic importance - it *is* hard > to counter the argument you put above, and the answer that we > have is an answer that doesn't explain - hence the tendencies for > people to invent their *own* explanations, which to my mind is > a cure worse than the disease, because it often leads men > to make sexist statements. Here, I think you are exactly right. The fact that no other reason is given, other than an arguement from authority, invites people to make all kinds of wild, and quite sexist, speculations about the "real" reason behind the exclusion. It actually is quite revealing -- one hears from conservatives that women are "spiritually equal" even though they have a different social function (i.e. the traditional one). This viewpoint isn't much different from that one sees from Muslims and Christians, and pretty much belies any claim that the Baha'i Faith has to have made any progress in this area from other religions. I don't think this is a majority viewpoint, though, but one hears this pretty often. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > You have > yet to post the entire email (header and body) to get yourself out of > hot water AND not a single member of Talisman9 has come to your rescue > by posting same themselves. << That's because the whole idea is so silly. There are over 200 people on Talisman who saw that message, and Nima, being Juan's friend would not post a message and attribute it to Juan if it weren't his. Either you are really unfamiliar with the players in Baha'i cyberspace, in which case you're really jumping the gun by making accusations when you don't know what you're talking about, or you've got some kind of game going -- like trying to get Juan to come here to defend Nima and the message, or to try to get people to repost the message for some reason. The source of the original post is a non-issue, and Nima is not in hot water over it. Karen The news group here may, as the clock > ticks, begin to think that you don't have a single friend in > Talisman9. Not even Dr. Cole has come to your aid, to say that yes, > what you forwarded was his message. Maybe it's about time to tell Mom > and Dad what's been going on on your (bedroom?) computer. > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. > > > > Were that the case, then why does 'Abdu'l-Baha go through so much trouble > > providing the scriptural justification for women's exclusion? > > Because that was always what he did? And, *which* scriptural > justification? I thought the status quo was "I rule that this is the > case", and "this for a wisdom of God's which ere long will > become manifest as the noonday sun" - I don't see much > scriptural justification there.<< Dear Paul, The scriptural justification is that Baha'u'llah said "O ye men (rijal) of the House of Justice". It isn't so much a command, I don't think, as it is an assumption. And, of course, we have seen that "rijal" can include prominent women within its definition. And later, 'Abdu'l-Baha overturned his own interpretation of that, allowing women to serve on local and national "houses of justice". Anyway, that's the portion of scripture that he quoted to Corinne True, as justification for the exclusion. However, in the Writings themselves there is no clue that the gender composition of the Universal House of Justice would be different from that of lower "houses of justice". That rests entirely on authoritative interpretations, not the Writings. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Furthermore, as I > > mentioned the 1909 letter already made it clear that women were only to be > > excluded from the Universal House of Justice. And that was written three > years > > before His visit to America. He simply saw to it that the Chicago House > stopped > > dragging their feet at that time. > > > > I think it was a little more complicated than that. Corrine True had > doubtless been bringing her interpretation to the Chicago House > several times since getting the second letter, while they kept > saying "what about the first letter?" and "This was already > settled, wasn't it?" It took Abdu'l Baha's physical presence > to set them straight. > > > > > >Was is still the Chicago House then? When was the nomenclature > > >standardised to what we *now* understand? > > > > I believe the nomenclature in 1909 was the House of Spirituality. > > > > So, do we know when the names of Baha'i organisations > took their modern form, and became LSAs everywhere? > > Paul > > > > meet another who has been incensed as indeed Pat has been. I wonder if > you see it quite the same way. Let me put my POV to you.<< Actually, Brian, what I was thinking was that it's a bad business trying to answer these hypotheticals -- that's how I landed into Susan's trap. I answered a question about a hypothetical scenario, that she kept coming at me for, and now she's using and twisting my answer to try to prove I would deliberately suppress information. And I strongly suspect that's why she asked me the question in the first place -- so she'd have a stick to beat me with any time she was so inclined. Then I go and answer another hypothetical scenario for Pat. You think I'd learn some sense. > > But the idea is to look at the /composite whole/ and not at bits and > pieces in isolation. << Exactly. And what relevance does that incident have to the "whole", especially since Pat's original question had to do with my writing? Unless I was writing "Juan Cole: Warts and All", it *doesn't* have that much to do with the broader story. > It was not only a lie, it was an abominable lie, bringing discredit upon > him in a number of ways.<< I don't believe it was a lie, and he has given an explanation to his friends on a private list. > > This is academic suicide, and Juan has perpetrated a prostitution of his > academia. << Um, I don't know if you've noticed, Brian, but trb is not academia, and an email post is not a scholarly treatise. If messing up on email lists was academic suicide, then Susan really *would* be "Dr. Death" as Dermod calls her. > > And Juan will not say, he hides away, and Pat will flush him out.<< Juan is not "hiding". He has been extremely busy since 9/11 and has been scarce even on liberal lists -- and he has never been one to hang out on Usenet, at least in the two years I've been around. Heck, he isn't even the one who posted that commentary here. If a friend of mine posted something controversial I'd written to a forum where I usually don't spend time, am I "hiding" if I don't show up to defend it? I mean > to say, would you not applaud that if the perpetrator were .... say, a > member of the UHJ?<< I'm not sure I know what you mean -- you mean if somebody like Pat kept insisting the "perpetrator" show himself and make an accounting of his actions? Be honest now - are you as objective enough in this > regard? And if not, then can you stand up and say, yes, OK, I am biased, > do not have an open mind, and I may be wrong in other things too? (It's > OK Karen, I know you would ... but how about others?)<< Actually, I'm honest enough to say I'm not completely unbiased. I think anybody who claims that is fooling himself. Juan is, of course, my friend and I will defend him when and where I'm able. He has done the same for me. But the original question concerned my writing. When I'm schmoozing like this on the Net, then I might speculate and throw things around. When I write articles, I try to get my facts straight. And in the article that is being published, I applied the very strictest standards I could, and tried to say nothing that I could not back up, and to be as balanced as I could possibly be, considering the subject. > > And bearing in mind what I wrote above, do you choose to model your > vision after your own passions and opinions, in the face of contrary > evidence, because the source does, or does not, appeal to you?<< What the hell are you talking about? The truth is that I'm not entirely sure I understand quite what happened in regard to this incident, even with Juan's explanation, and so I'm disinclined either to defend or condemn him on it. Call it evasive if you like, but that's really where I'm at with it. > > Let me tell you about a time on Talisman9, when Juan wrote a stunning > attack on the person of Hartmut Grossmann. Now, I know Hartmut > personally, and have the greatest respect for him as a man. Nothing, but > nothing that was written about him was true. I will not take that lying > down, so I responded to Talisman9. I made one error - I posited what > would be the case on Talisman if someone had written the same things > about Juan. My post was rejected as an ad hominem. > > Convenient huh? Slander a man not on the list, and it is OK - he is after > all, a member of the opposition. But reply against Juan, the demi-god of > Talisman? No way. << Brian, you are not the only person around to complain about moderation on Talisman. Even some liberals have complained about it. What do you want me to say? I know nothing about the incident you're talking about. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > I can understand that with Susan, Pat is not at all hypothetical - very > concrete indeed.<< Dear Brian, I went back and looked again at what Pat actually asked and it was "Did you write (or would you write) about Juan and his pusallanimity message, OR don't you really feel like avoiding the fact that his pusallanimity message ever happened? " So he was basically asking three questions here, one of which was hypothetical. My answer to "Did you write?" is "No." The answer to "Would you write?" is "Yes, if it were relevant to what I'm doing, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where that would be true." The answer to "Don't you feel like avoiding it?" is "Yes, but I wouldn't if it were relevant to what I was doing." > > > > >> But the idea is to look at the /composite whole/ and not at bits and > >> pieces in isolation. << > > > > Exactly. And what relevance does that incident have to the "whole", > > especially since Pat's original question had to do with my writing? > > Unless I was writing "Juan Cole: Warts and All", it *doesn't* have that > > much to do with the broader story. > > I do not know what the composite whole is for you, but for me the > question is this: I need to see a picture, the frame, behind the canvas, > "meet" the painter and then see where I am at with the picture.<< O.K., I see what the difference between us is. You are basically seeing Juan and Baha'i liberalism as being one and the same. I don't. His role, while significant, is not central to me. When I write about what has happened, he is not the "hero" of my story. In fact, when I trace the conflicts between Baha'i liberals and the administration, Juan doesn't really emerge as key until Talisman. His perceived role as "opposition leader" is something that happened in the aftermath of the crackdown, in some ways because he was the only one left standing and visible.. And that perception is quite exaggerated anyway. One reason I have found him believeable, from the very beginning is that no one has been able to produce evidence that he was ever guilty of anything before being shoved out of the Faith -- everyone projects the post-crackdown Juan onto who and what he was beforehand. Nobody has ever given me anything from before May 1996 that would justify what was done to him, nor have I found anything in my research. Since then he has been sometimes angry and over the top; not even all liberals agree with everything he says and does. Baha'i liberalism still would exist even without Juan Cole. When I write, Juan and his work is not the main focus -- he is one source, but certainly not my only one. My own interests and emphasis differs from Juan's in some significant ways. I have never heard Juan say word one about life in small, struggling Baha'i communities and how that experience contributes to disillusionment among Baha'is, which is something I've said a lot about. I differ from him inasmuch as it looks to me like most of the of trouble in the administration is due to simple incompetence rather than deliberate corruption -- but then, I don't have the kind of sources he does, either. Anyway, the point is that Juan is not the center of the liberal universe. It would exist even if Juan were somehow discredited. He is simply one strong, and talented voice in a chorus of voices. > > >> It was not only a lie, it was an abominable lie, bringing discredit > >> upon him in a number of ways.<< > > > > I don't believe it was a lie, and he has given an explanation to his > > friends on a private list. > > Karen, are you saying that: > > 1. there was such a letter and > 2. it has been suppressed by the NSA of USA > > because if you are not saying that, then your sentence makes no sense. Or > are you saying: > > 1. I do not believe Juan was lying > 2. He has made claims which I can not accept or deny yet and > 3. I prefer to believe Juan at this time than any other source > > In which case, no problems. That second one is closer. > > > snip > > > > I mean > >> to say, would you not applaud that if the perpetrator were .... say, a > >> member of the UHJ?<< > > > > I'm not sure I know what you mean -- you mean if somebody like Pat kept > > insisting the "perpetrator" show himself and make an accounting of his > > actions? > > What I mean is that if the roles were reversed - same situation, but > people were swapped, would you be as reticent as you are at the moment? > But it's OK. What I think is that it is difficult to change perception.<< Actually, what I'm finding trouble picturing is a UHJ member getting himself in trouble for his public statements like that. Or, if he did, for somebody to insist on an accounting. Susan was disturbed by one of Peter Khan's statements in his talk at the NZ teaching conference, asked for an further explaination, and received no answer. It's pretty tough to imagine someone in that position publicly harping on it -- and if they did, they'd end up in deep doo-doo with the AO. I'm not entirely sure if I would "applaud" if somebody did that. That's not my style, personally. I did, by the way, quote Khan's talk at a couple of points in my article. *That's* more my style. I actually don't blame you and Pat for being upset, really. I have not said that either of you should stop expressing your opinions about it. All I'm saying is that I see this thing about Juan's post as being less significant than you do. So we differ. Where I object is the idea that I must be some kind of bad person because of that. > > > >> And bearing in mind what I wrote above, do you choose to model your > >> vision after your own passions and opinions, in the face of contrary > >> evidence, because the source does, or does not, appeal to you?<< > > > > What the hell are you talking about? The truth is that I'm not entirely > > sure I understand quite what happened in regard to this incident, even > > with Juan's explanation, and so I'm disinclined either to defend or > > condemn him on it. Call it evasive if you like, but that's really where > > I'm at with it. > > Fine :) evasive is good. What am I talking about? Well, I thought it > clear enough ... we form opinions, based on evidence we find acceptable. > So many opinions, but when it comes down to it, we often form opinions > that are comfortable to us, and clothe that opinion with the cover of > "evidence" If we are able to cast aside our preconceptions, we may well > be able to reassess a situation and come to a different, less comfortable > conclusion.<< Yeah, so? All that basically means is that you are telling me you think that my affection for Juan is leading me to excuse him because I don't want to believe him guilty of anything. The truth is I actually don't want to tell what my opinion is -- to you, to Juan, to anybody. So don't make assumptions about my "preconceptions", because you really don't know much about what I think -- other than I'm not hopping up and down denouncing Juan over this. > > You say you will bide your time on this and this does you credit as a > friend of Juan. << Thank you. > > > > Brian, you are not the only person around to complain about moderation > > on Talisman. Even some liberals have complained about it. What do you > > want me to say? I know nothing about the incident you're talking about. > > Ummm ... I do not complain about it - I just note it, and say that those > who decry biased and censored information are capable of using these > methods very effectively, hence my claim that they are hypocrites for not > admitting such practices while at the same time condemning them. > > And of course you know nothing about it - such things are not meant to be > made public, and when are so made public will be denied, or attibuted to > other motives. What do I want you to say? Nothing needs to be said, > Karen. I am quite sure you would have nothing to do with such practices > were you to be aware of them.<< Well, for sure, you couldn't *pay* me to moderate Talisman. Too many headaches. I prefer to do my thing independently anyway. I write my articles; I run my list; I travel around Baha'i cyberspace. And I only take as much guff from anybody as I decide to take. From what I can see, being a Talisman moderator is a whole lot more complicated than that. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Did you write (or would you write) about Juan and his pusallanimity message, OR > don't you really feel like avoiding the fact that his pusallanimity message > ever happened? << If that event was relevant to something I was writing, Pat, the answer is yes. Yes, I would include it. And truthfully, yes I would *feel* like avoiding it -- but I wouldn't if it were part of the story I was doing, and that particular incident was important to it. It is not, however, relevant to what I've been writing, being, after all something quite recent. I'm certainly not going to bring it up and say that this proves that the UHJ was right about Juan back in 1996, which is the context in which I mention him -- that would be stupid! I wouldn't quote a UHJ letter writting in 2001 to say anything about their policies in 1996, either. However, quite frankly I don't see how this particular thing would be relevant unless I were to do a detailed piece that focused mostly on the Baha'i cyberwars. Or something that focused particularly on Juan himself, which is something I'm not going to do. I know you're really ticked about it, Pat, but it wasn't that big of an event in the broader scheme of things. Do you want to be taken seriously, or simply be another > partisan operative in a psychological conflict? Do you want to be true to your > pack, or true to the facts?<< What I am true to, and what I've always been true to, is my vision of what I think is right. Whether others take me seriously or not is their perogative. > It can be rhetorical, and I'll take the duck. Quack! :-) Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk Thank you for this, Michael. You have a very imaginative way of getting your point across. Again we have been charmingly admonished. I am not entirely comfortable with boasting, but was simply joining in the fun with my merry and stalwart companions here. And you are right -- slay the Dragon, and it reappears -- a temporary victory, at best. Love, Karen -- www.bahai-faith.tk Michael McKenny wrote in message news:a3jb1a$hu2$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > Greetings, Dermod and All. > In accordance with what some would term Pagan superstition I did > not post on this topic. One way of looking at things is that one does not > speak about what one may not wish to happen. > I had three thoughts when I saw there was a thread with this title. > The first was this charming story among those in THE BOOK OF DEDE KORKUT > which is a collection of traditional Turkic tales. In this story a man > says to his bride to be, "You are going to boast that you did better than > me in this fight against the foes." The woman smiles and says, "Boasting > is for men." > The second was this one in the first paragraph of this post that one > does not speak of what one does not wish to happen. I do understand that > there actually may be some who are eager and goading your dragon to > reappear. > And the third thought I had was about this game I was given as a > gift by a friend in Rockland when I moved from there to Pembroke. It was > a board game called Wizard's Quest. One fun thing about it was that the > players spent the first half of the game falling under attack from first > a dragon and then the orcs. During the players' half of the game it was > possible to attack the dragon, if one chose, but the rules read, "If the > dragon is killed, a new one will appear at the beginning of the next turn." > Happy Imbolc Blessings, Michael. > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > -- www.bahai-faith.tk Dermod Ryder wrote in message news:a39i9f$15q8l4$3@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de... > "Curious" responded to this message: - > > Karen Bacquet wrote in message > news:u5bs5qsddkol67@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> If that's the way she's going to be, then there's no reason at all > to > >>have a > >> conversation with her like a real human being. Adieu, Dragon Lady! > > >Ahhhhhhhh! Through a veil of tears induced by the heartiest of > laughter I > >salute the protagonists!;-) > >I lay abed all day smitten with some bug...so bored I watched my sons > WWF > >wrestling video... > >Becoming really desperate for entertainment I ventured down this > twisted > >thread. > >I see now that a real pratfall requires a university education!;-) > >What a thread! What a hoot! > > > >LOL?............Nearly wet myself!! > > > >Dermod The 'Claytons' Killfiled! The bloke you respond to when your > not > >responding to him anymore!;-) > >Classic comedy Professor (assistant). > > > >As for you Bacquet;-) > >I believe there was some prior reference to your lack of > 'credentials'?..... > >Well y'all can rest on your laurels now 'Dragon Slayer' ! ;-) > > Now hold on just a moment, Rod! I grant you that Mrs Bacquet has put > the Dragon in the sin bin but up with this title of "Dragon Slayer" > under no circumstances will I put. > Hey, get yer mitts off my title, you pushy Spudlander! I won it fair and square. Sure, maybe you boys softened her up a bit, but it was yours truly who delivered the coup de grace. In this age, "ladies are as gentlemen" and we wield our own swords. Teacher sent Susie into detention, and she has been quiet ever since. She can come out when my article is published, provided she can talk like a rational adult without wild accusations and personal attacks. Rod, I quite like the Joan of Arc image -- one of my favorite songs, that I haven't heard for a long time because I've got it on a vinyl album is "Joan of Arc" by Leonard Cohen; it's on an old Judy Collins album. I'd share the lyric with you, but it's probably a bit heavy for such a lighthearted thread. All Baha'is have a bit of the martyr in them, when all is said and done. Karen the Dragon Slayer https://www.bacquet.tk > Let me remind you, my man, that it was Michael McKenny who put in the > first punches but he had to rely on me to put her on the canvas. I > think it was the "Diagonal Steam Trap" wot done it in the end! > > Let me also remind you, my man, that your so-called "Dragon Slayer" > didn't have the House "spiritually corrosive" compliment (Did I hear > the cry of "Encore"?) aimed at her. Neither was she put in the > kill-file at all, never mind first - indeed we have no evidence that > she has been put in the kill-file at all - but I was, followed > closely behind by Michael - so there are two aspirants to the title of > the Saint George of TRB and your claimant just does not measure up at > all! And besides which I got the title of "Dragon Slayer" from > Freethought and he ought to know - so there! > > As ever, > > Dermod. > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 12:38 PM > > Then I suggest you tell Fred to stop bringing you here. He drags out > quotes from you to use as weapons. If you do not wan't folks to > comment on your ideas then tell your proxy to knock it off.<< For some reason this word "proxy" is popping up all of a sudden all over trb. I expect this kind of thing from Schaut, and the cartoon character Dr. Electron, but not from you, Dave. If Juan has a proxy anywhere, I've never met one. I've never known Juan to tell anyone what to do or not do -- it is fairly rare for him even to give advice, at least from what I've seen. This picture that AO-defenders like to give of Juan as some kind of grand puppetmaster directing the activities of Baha'i dissidents on the Internet is just nutso conspiracy stuff. It is especially ridiculous to see people like Fred and Dermod characterized as "proxies" here -- those two definitely do whatever the heck they want! Karen https://www.bacquet.tk From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:08 PM > > It would be fair to say, though, that it is Fred's constant reposting > of things that Juan said some while ago that has caused him to > become an issue around here.<< Oh, I think Juan would be an issue, even without Fred.:-) But what Dave said was "If you do not want folks to comment on your ideas then tell your proxy to knock it off." as if Juan were in control of what Fred posts on the Internet. Besides, it wasn't Fred's repost of Juan's words that has kicked up the dust recently; it was Pat's, and then the arrival of Comic Book Guy who is pretending like its a real big story. I have really mixed feelings about it all: I hated to see Juan have to mess with this tempest in a teapot, especially since by doing so he's giving these people what they want. On the other hand, what happened has been clarified for me and no one gives Juan a better defense than he does himself. He rarely jumps into the fray on open forums, but when he does, it's poetry in motion. And Paul -- you're not doing so badly yourself.:-) Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Paul > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:12 AM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Robert Little wrote in message news:lZna8.17852$dx6.4816157@twister.socal.rr.com... > Karen > > There is no difficulty in knowing who is doing what to whom here. An > individual received a letter, obeyed the insitutions, and now his name is > being thrown about this garbage thread, without his permission or assent. > Unlike these, he is a lover of Baha'u'llah, and is a victim of all of YOU.<< Robert, I was shocked to see that letter posted this morning, myself, because although I had seen it, I had always heard that it needed to be kept private. However, I don't believe Nima would have posted it without permission of the recipient -- a person about whom I have heard nothing but good from those who know him. One person, who has known him for many years, told me that "Every cell in his body is Baha'i". Where is your outrage, Robert, that a devoted believer should have been subjected to a letter such as this? Why is it so horrible and terrible to discuss this letter, but it is perfectly o.k. to threaten him with destroying his personal and professional life because he publishes a book about Baha'u'llah that doesn't meet with official approval? Good God, man! If I had my way I'd plaster that letter everyplace I could, quote it any time I could, publish it far and wide and show it to anyone who will listen, to let the world know what kind of monsters have hijacked the Faith of Baha'u'llah! I have not done so, because I would not harm the recipient of that letter for all the world -- but the gentlemen in Haifa would. And they may still. But be assured they will not be able to do it in the dark, but it will be in the broad daylight, for all to see. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Anyone who is in favor of causing pain, of backbiting, continue with your > support of this ugliness. > > Robert A. Little > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u6js43433serbe@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- > > Baha'u'llah > > Pat Kohli wrote in message > > news:3C69DA42.442BFB7D@ameritel.net... > > > Allahu Abha! > > > > > > Karen Bacquet wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Pat, > > > > > > > > Look at Juan's webpage more carefully. He received this letter > > *twice* -- > > > > once in its entirety from its original recipient, and once as a fax in > > > > > > I had heard that he did _not_ recieve the letter from his original > > recipient;<< > > > > I'm sorry; I must have got that wrong. Juan says on his website that he > got > > the original *as it was sent* to the recipient, not *from* the recipient. > > > > > maybe I was duped again; maybe the second time was from the recipient > and > > the > > > first time was someone else, such that it was recived (once) from > someone > > other > > > than the recipient. It gets so confusing.<< > > > > Yeah, I know. Believe me, sometimes keeping track of who did what to whom > > and why can make a person's head spin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > excerpted form, which was the one being circulated. That's why he > felt > > free > > > > to put it on its website, because the excerpted version had been made > > > > public. > > > > > > I don't question his right to make it public. I don't think I ever took > > > exception to his right to make use of the text of this letter to > > XXXXXXXXX. The > > > thing which is now apparent is the letter is _not_ something being > mailed > > out to > > > all enquirers, but to someone with specific business.<< > > > > The original, complete letter was, of course, only addressed to one > person. > > However, an excerpted version was being circulated. *That's* what Juan > was > > talking about below: > > > > > > Perhaps I was mistaken, again, when I read, > > > < "Those on this list may enjoy reading my response to yet another > vicious > > > < personal attack on me by Doug Martin, being sent out from the BWC to > > > < dozens of people behind my back, this time concerning my book, > > > < *Modernity and the Millennium*." > > > < Juan Cole 27 June 2000 > > > > > > Maybe I'm just an easily duped slack-jawed, glazed-eye cultist, but > > doesn't the > > > statement imply that the letter is going out to any old (and every old) > > > pedestrian Baha'i who might inquire?<< > > > > The excerpted version apparently was being given out to people. Whether > it > > was to "any old" inquirer, I don't know. > > > > Could there have been dozens of publishers > > > involved - who would have thought there were dozens of Baha'i > publishers, > > all > > > getting this letter? > > > > > > Come on! The letter was making the rounds, but it was only sent by the > > BWC to > > > one person. The folks 'circulating it to dozens', would be Nima, et al. > > When I > > > got the letter a year or two back, it wasn't from the BWC. When you got > > the > > > letter, was it from the BWC?<< > > > > It was circulating privately, given with the proviso that it be kept under > > wraps. Juan never claimed that the BWC was circulating the complete > letter > > only the an excerpted version, specifically concerning his book. *That's* > > the version he put on his website. This is what Juan says on that > webpage: > > > > "I received the portions of this letter, originally dated 3 August, 1999, > > twice. Once I received the entire thing by email indirectly, as it had > been > > sent to the original recipient. The second time I received it in the form > of > > excerpts by fax in April, 2000, from a person wholly unrelated to the > > original recipient, who said it was being sent around by the BWC. Up until > > that point, I felt constrained by issues of confidentiality from putting > any > > of the letter up on the Web. But when I am being faxed excerpts from it by > > persons unrelated to the original recipient, I think at that point it is a > > public document. What follows is the excerpts I was sent, in the order > they > > appeared in the fax, and my commentary on them. I do not now represent and > > never represented this text as complete (as shown by the ellipses) nor as > a > > facsimile. It is a commentary on selected passages. What is in brackets is > > from the original--the greeting, signoff, and introductory para.. I do not > > post the original because I do not have the recipient's permission to do > so, > > and much of the letter pertains to him and is private." > > > > Love, Karen > > https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > The letter is to a specific person and now all can > > > see it was always to a specifc person, rather than a mass mailing form > > letter. > > > > > > Blessings! > > > - Pat > > > kohli@ameritel.net > > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:26 AM > There are plenty of half truths that you keep stoking to keep them > alive.<< And just what half-truths are those? Your willingness to characterize the UHJ as monsterous shows > that you are no longer some impartial observer. << Of course, I'm not impartial. Neither are you. What I don't understand, Dave, is why you'd expect me to react any other way to this. I was furious to discover what the denounced article "A Modest Proposal" was nothing more than a list of reform proposals, and resigned my membership from the Faith over it. I was horrified when I found out about the Talisman Crackdown, and reacted by going public with my own story on my website. I can't believe that we've talked as much as we have and you still don't get it: I think that coercing people into silence is wrong. I think the attempt by the Baha 'i administration to stifle free expression is wrong, and ultimately futile and destructive. I will *always* respond with outrage when Baha'is have the screws put on them like this, for their role in the expression and circulation of ideas. This is the same impasse that has always been between us, Dave. You think that these actions, if they are done in the name of the Covenant, are perfectly acceptable. I don't. I never have. You can't plaster "Covenant" over something wrong and make it right. >You have taken second > hand information from unreliable sources and forged it into a mock > truth that is dished out for all and sundry to consume without a care > in the world for the harm it causes.<< "Second-hand information?" We're talking here about a letter whose full text has just been made available. How much more "first-hand" can you get? > > I tried to see you as a seeker after truth but more and more you read > like a partisan operative who defends folks like Juan<< And why do you keep dragging Juan into this? I'd be upset even if I didn't know the author of the book. In fact, I read M&M before I ever knew Juan at all, and *was* upset by his treatment. As for my "defending" him, I haven't exactly given him a rousing defense just lately over the "Prayer for America" thing. All I've done is refrain from condemning him, which I suppose is what you're really upset about here. >who have proven > to be unreliable and highly biased (to put it mildly). I thought that > you were a bridge builder but now I see that you have a hammer in one > hand and a torch in the other. I will no longer stand on the bridge > as you try to burn it.<< Your notion of building bridges, Dave, means that you'll try to convert me to your point of view, and if I don't you'll tell me something is wrong with me. What I have noticed is that, over time, you've grown much more hardline than when we first started talking a couple of years ago. > Evil shmevil. The UHJ has the right to defend this cause from those > who would misrepresent it. The read Juan's book and reached the > conclusion that it did not accurately portray the Faith. So they > rejected it. Juan is pissed off. Well - too damn bad. Its up to the > UHJ what gets presented by a Baha'i source and waht does not. Juan is > free to publish whatever he wants - just not through a Baha'i company. > Not without review.<< This is not a "Baha'i" company. This is an independent publisher. If we were talking about instructions given to the Baha'i Distribution Service, I' d feel differently. That *is* an official Baha'i outlet, and I would expect some control to be exercised there. That's what makes review so monstrous -- they not only want to control what is published and distributed through official sources, they want to control *all* publications about the Faith. If Juan were still enrolled, they'd have come down on his head for having it published *anywhere*. > But you are dealing with an Institution that has authority and > responsibility. We are told - no - commanded to obey it. We are > assured that they know what they are doing and that they are guided in > their decisions. They may "take counsel together regarding those > things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to > enforce that which is agreeable to them". You don't agree. Fine but > do you have to turn this into Karen vs the UHJ? You are not acting > impartial. You are actively seeking to damage the UHJ. You aren't on > the sidelines anymore.<< How could I possibly "damage the UHJ"? I have no power whatsoever to hurt them. They, on the other hand, have the power to hurt people in a big way. > It is completely within their purview to do what they did. I have > absolutely no problem with it at all.<< Which says a whole lot about your values. > The UHJ is not evil.<< I did not say the UHJ is evil. I said that this letter is. > Saying that it is puts you on the wrong side of > the line of objectivity. << It is not exactly "objective" to automatically condone everything one's religious leaders do, either. > Baha'u'llah created the UHJ. He gave us the assurances of its > guidance. He told them to "enforce that which is agreeable to them". > Now you place your own judgement over theirs. You have placed > yourself on higher moral ground and attacked them. You have taken > everything that Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi have ever > said about the UHJ and tossed it in the trash.<< Clearly you have a different view of what it means to be a Baha'i than I do. > I know you like to defend your friends but I think that friendship is > causing you to overlook the real truth.<< . I don't even know this publisher all that well personally; I've only talked to him a few times. As I said above, I had strong reactions to this kind of thing, even when I didn't know anybody out here at all. What "real truth" am I overlooking? > I am mad at you right now because I thought you were above this crap.<< You're going to be even madder at me when my article comes out in *Cultic Studies Journal*. I guess I'll just have to live with it. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Dave From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Cultic Studies Journal article Date: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:43 AM > > Incidentally, I think you've achieved a major victory for the > defense of the principles Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha extolled > by publishing such an informative article in a publication of the > American Family Foundation. For those unfamiliar with AFF, > see https://www.csj.org/aff/aff_about.htm I have for years tried > unsuccessfully to help them understand how things actually > stand within everyday bahai circles.<< Yes, I've heard that AFF has been very reluctant to accept that there may be problems with psychological manipulation and harm in the Baha'i Faith -- the impression I got from the editor is that he had picked up enough from other sources that he was willing to accept that there could be problems there. The Baha'i Faith has had very positive PR -- most non-Baha'is have no clue about the Faith's authoritarian side, and have trouble believing it exists. Love, Karen > > Respectfully, > > Fred > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience > https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship > > > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u84fajrqf4m688@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > -- > > "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- > > Baha'u'llah > > Bahai Faith wrote in message > > news:a5tbms$a3csd$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de... > > > Congratulations! I look forward to reading it. Please > > > provide us with a link directly to CSJ if or when your > > > article appears on their site. > > > > Dear Fred, > > > > I was told that the article will eventually appear in AFF's online journal > > *Cults and Society*, but I expect that will take a while. After all, this > > issue of CSJ that just came out is the 2001 volume, so it looks like > things > > move pretty slowly. It was actually the online journal that I originally > > queried about, then the editor invited me to write for the print journal. > > Anyway, I'll let you know when the article appears on their site. > > > > Love, Karen > > https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > > > > > Not much to disagree with in the enticing abstract! > > > > > > "Abstract: The Baha'i Faith, best-known for its liberal social teachings > > and > > > tolerance towards other religions, has an authoritarian governing > > structure > > > that has caused a high level of disillusionment among adherents. Because > > of > > > the religion's stress on unity, there is considerable insecurity about > the > > > expression of dissent and a fear of internal enemies. Conformity is > > enforced > > > by sanctions, excommunication, and shunning, and information is > controlled > > > through a system of censorship. Although the religion is governed by > > elected > > > institutions, they are not held accountable to the electorate. Moreover, > > the > > > supreme governing institution is believed to be infallible. While the > > spread > > > of the Internet in the 1990s has weakened the administration's control > of > > > information, the Baha'i leadership has threatened and sanctioned liberal > > > intellectuals for the expression of their opinions on email forums." > > > https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience > > > https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship > > > > > > > > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > > > news:u8375mr9o6ab99@corp.supernews.com... > > > > My article "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the Baha'i > > Community" > > > > is now in print and available on my website: > > > > https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html > > > > > > > > Cultic Studies Journal has said that comments, both positive and > > negative > > > > are welcome. > > > > > > > > Karen Bacquet > > > > > > > > -- > > > > "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . > ." -- > > > > Baha'u'llah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Cultic Studies Journal article Date: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:33 AM > > There she blows again - taking pot shots at the one whom she finds > B_O_R_I_N_G - safe in the illusion that as she has kill-filed him she > need not see his response. Sounds to me like a new > ante-post-post-modernist philosophy - "I refuse to read - therefore it > does not exist." > > Anecdotal is not unlike circumstantial evidence - when there's a lot > around, it becomes compelling.<< Anecdotal evidence can be tricky. Even eyewitnesses to an event can be mistaken, or give different views of what happened -- just ask anybody in law enforcement. However, when you have a lot of different people saying basically the same thing, then it just can't be dismissed as not being valid evidence. Within the cult critic movement, there has been discussion of the difficulties surrounding the stories of ex-members of a group. Those who oppose the "anti-cultists" tend to discount horror stories in a blanket way, which really isn't valid, either. In the current CSJ, there's an article by the editor, Michael Langone, that mentions the two extremes of believing that these groups are *never* bad, and believing that they are unalterably bad. Religious groups change over time; people in the same group have differing experiences. Langone quotes an article discussing the abuse of children in the Hare Krishna group -- an article that actually appeared in the group's official publication, which demonstrates how things can change even in quite controlling cults. It's a very healthy sign that they are doing critical examination of their own mistakes. I hope that the Baha'i administration can someday do the same. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk -- "> From the statistics provided, there must be tens of thousands of > ex-Baha'is out here. Mayhap we should start a movement amongst them. I > knew someone who worked in Wilmette for a bit. Said that two of the > reasons most frequently given for resigning were 1.- objections to no > women on the Universal House of Justice and 2.- inability to live up > to the stratospheric demands placed on personal conduct.<< What I find out there is that it's not only the simple fact of women not being allowed on the UHJ, but that this often isn't discovered until after a person is in the community. Even people who don't leave immediately for this reason feel uncomfortable with it. As for personal conduct, only a small percentage of the people I've come into contact with cite that as a reason for disillusionment, with the notable exception of homosexuals. For the most part, it is the administration-centeredness of the Faith which wears people out, although which particular aspect of that is foremost varies considerably. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > > eternally - Paul > > Inactivity if prolonged for a sufficient number of earthly rotations > may become indistinct from withdrawal. Mrs. Karen has explained why > many rotate into such oblivions.Nothing she said has been shown > untoward by warrant of any proof of reason or evidence.<< I think that the simple fact of widespread disillusionment in the Baha'i community is beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I can see how someone else might see the *reasons* for that differently than I do. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > eternally - Paul -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Michael McKenny wrote in message news:a6370d$goh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > Greetings, Karen. > Many thanks for your comments. Yes, it's fascinating what happens when > memory is reinforced by actual archives. I have megabytes of archives and > would be very surprised were what you refer to as the archives that stop > in mid April to actually contain most of the material that was posted. One > of the interesting impressions I have from glancing over some of the > material I have is that there was a lot of non-confrontational material. > What stands out in memory is the conflict, and this newsgroup would tend to > give the impression that hostility and contention is a great deal of what > happens in Baha'i cyberspace. It might require someone such as you to read > over the archives carefully and statistically, but my subjective > impression is that while I was there (from Feb 28th 1996, I believe) a > great deal of exchange of ideas took place, translations of scripture were > posted, and friendly discourse was evident. There were those uncomfortable > with this and they challenged this freedom of communication, but, in my > opinion, the majority of T1's content neither directly challenged > institutions, nor flamed those interpreted as so challenging.<< Dear Michael, This was my overall impression, as well, although now I'm engaged in a project that requires closer and more careful examination of these earlier posts, which could alter my opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. To me, it looks like the Talisman crackdown itself had a polarizing effect; it forced people either to choose sides or retire from the fray. I think this polarizing process continues -- I see more strident statements on both sides than I did when I first came out into cyberspace in late 1999. That the first Talisman was so threatening to conservatives, I think, is a sign of just how stifled Baha'i discourse was before the rise of cyberspace. Even the mildest questioning of the status quo was shocking; people just weren't used to it. I still run into that sort of reaction among Baha'is who are either new to cyberspace, or have spent their time on moderated, conservative forums. > I have now read the body of the article and I think it is very good. > I'll read through the rest of the footnotes and try to reply to whatever > catches my attention specifically. In general, I find this a fine and > serious examination of a very regretable topic. There is an alternate > universe somewhere where you are conversing as a Baha'i official in an > effort to transform non-Baha'i fundamentalism to wholesome tolerance > and understanding. << Thank you, Michael. We can all hope and pray that tolerance and understanding will be the ultimate outcome. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. > > "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > > Dear Michael, > > > > Thank you. That's what happens when all the archives aren't available. > > IIRC, the time frame of "less than a month" came from Paul Johnson's > > *Gnosis* article. As I said earlier, the online archives for T-1 stop in > > the middle of April 1996, and the T-2 archives aren't available at all, so I > > couldn't be certain about exact dates. > > > > Love, Karen > > > > -- > > "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- > > Baha'u'llah > > Michael McKenny wrote in message > > news:a60c0r$h$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > >> Greetings, Karen. > >> Many thanks for the article which appears, on initial glance, to be > >> quite good. I'll try to comment on it in greater detail, soon. For now, > >> let me address one historical point. > >> I noticed in your article that you referred to Talisman 2 starting > >> up a month after the closing of T1 (article's note 53). While I have a > >> memory of reading of the close of Talisman 1 as if it were the Czech radio > >> station forced to close down by the occupying Soviet troops in 1968, the > >> following posts (for the second one, I am including only the header, as > >> this contains the interesting information; I conceal the names of everyone > >> involved) suggest that Talisman 2, Irfan and Bahai-st were all operating > > on > >> the final day of T1. Separate posts indicate May 23, 1996 was the date for > >> the closing of T1. > >> I'll try to reply to more of your article in the near future. > >> Everyone please note that what comes below is historical and more > >> current information on subscribing to lists may more wisely be sought for > >> those desiring to do so in 2002 CE. > >> Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. > >> > >> Message #55 (62 is last): > >> Date: Thu May 23 21:31:31 1996 > >> From: X > >> Subject: Let us move to Baha'i Studies > >> To: talisman@indiana.edu > >> > >> > >> Dear Talismanians: > >> > >> I suggest that all of us who wish to continue the marvelous experiment > >> that was Talisman to move to Baha'i-Studies. I believe that it offers > >> us an environment conducive to the kind of discourse we are accustomed > >> to. Y tells me that he would welcome us and our discussions. > >> > >> To sign up: > >> > >> Send the command: subscribe bahai-st to: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > >> > >> If you have any questions, contact Y. > >> > >> For the digest, send the command: subscribe bahai-st-digest > >> to: major@johnco.cc.ks.us. > >> > >> See you there!! > >> > >> With Baha'i love, > >> X > >> > >> Message #50 (62 is last): > >> Date: Thu May 23 17:28:45 1996 > >> From: Z > >> Subject: happy declaration of the Bab > >> To: irfan@umich.edu, talisman@umich.edu > >> Cc: talisman@indiana.edu > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > >> > > > > > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > Dear friends, I'd like to thank everyone here for their kind comments about my article. So far, the feedback I've gotten everywhere has been more positive than negative. It has been very exciting for me to break into print at long last; I never would have dreamed, when I started writing that I'd be able to be published in a journal like this. I'm really hoping that getting the truth out there will have a beneficial impact in the long run, and I feel very encouraged to continue exploring and writing about these issues. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Karen Bacquet wrote in message news:u8375mr9o6ab99@corp.supernews.com... > My article "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the Baha'i Community" > is now in print and available on my website: > https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html > > Cultic Studies Journal has said that comments, both positive and negative > are welcome. > > Karen Bacquet > > -- > "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- > Baha'u'llah > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Article in American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal by Karen Bacquet Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:11 AM > > I did not know that "American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal" was > academic. What is next, "Themestream"?<< Pat, If you didn't know that CSJ was academic, then you haven't been paying attention. Susan had the same initial reaction, and this issue was discussed. Cultic Studies Journal is a refereed journal, which means that not only did the editor have to like my paper, but also three experts in the field had to think it worth publishing. CSJ is abstracted in both Psychological Abstracts and Religion Index. In short, it is just about the polar opposite of Themestream. Of course, if this keeps up, I'll just have to get myself published in another academic journal. Don't think I can't do it. What put-down will you come up with then? Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: The Big Five (Was Article in American...) Date: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:02 AM -- > > There's a problem with that scenario: I'm not on the rolls, so they'd > never > > characterize me as a "Baha'i with writing ability". In fact, they are > more > > likely to say that I'm not a Baha'i and that I don't know what I'm talking > > about. > > > But if the Faith had the kind of tolerance of internal differences and > straightforward openness that the Doc is describing you probably would be > Baha'i or, if not, your article would have been very different.<< If the Baha'i Faith had the kind of tolerance you are talking about, I would still be an enrolled Baha'i today. If I see that the Baha'i Faith is heading in a direction where those differences would be tolerated, and openness encouraged, I would seek to regain my membership. I do not, unfortunately, see such signs yet. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: The Big Five (Was Article in American...) Date: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:52 AM > You seem to be saying that the Faith of Baha'u'llah must conform to your > understanding of the writings in order for you to consider returning. I > understand that this is not what you said, but it does seem to be what you > mean.<< Robert, No. The Baha'i Faith simply has to *allow* my understanding of the Writings, and the understandings of other Baha'i liberals. I spent my whole life as a Baha'i believing that a diversity of understanding was part of what creates the unity we're striving for. You know, the big tent thing. I think the way things are now is intolerably exclusive for a religion that claims to be universal. My time as a enrolled member was not that enjoyable, except for a few brief, shining moments. Returning to the community, as I see it, would mean something of a sacrifice on my part. It's one I'm willing to make, though, if I see signs of positive change. In the meantime, I get along just fine on my own. > > I see the situation as follows: Baha'u'llah is Who He says He is, and > therefore His Faith will proceed to the destination He lays out in His > writings.<< I don't see "His Faith" and the Baha'i administration as being equivalent, and prophecies never come true in the way that is expected. The Faith of Baha'u'llah is in the Hands of God and none of us can clearly see the "destination". > > You see the situation as follows: Baha'u'llah is Who He says He is, but His > Faith will not proceed to the destination He lays our for it in His > writings. You see it this way because you feel you are a victim of a Baha'i > Faith that does not conform to the writings of Baha'u'llah.<< I have never presented myself as a victim; I have spoken out on behalf of the victims. I made a conscientious choice. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk Since you (feel > you) are a victim, you feel it proper to publicize and broadcast the fall > from grace of this divinely ordained faith. You are proud of your writings, > of your work on the internet, and you feel you are helping other victims of > the Baha'i Faith. > > Would this be an accurate assessment? > > Robert A. Little > > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:u90iaa6mg0on53@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > -- > > > > There's a problem with that scenario: I'm not on the rolls, so they'd > > > never > > > > characterize me as a "Baha'i with writing ability". In fact, they are > > > more > > > > likely to say that I'm not a Baha'i and that I don't know what I'm > > talking > > > > about. > > > > > > > But if the Faith had the kind of tolerance of internal differences and > > > straightforward openness that the Doc is describing you probably would > be > > > Baha'i or, if not, your article would have been very different.<< > > > > If the Baha'i Faith had the kind of tolerance you are talking about, I > would > > still be an enrolled Baha'i today. If I see that the Baha'i Faith is > > heading in a direction where those differences would be tolerated, and > > openness encouraged, I would seek to regain my membership. I do not, > > unfortunately, see such signs yet. > > > > Love, Karen > > https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: The Big Five (Was Article in American...) Date: Sunday, March 17, 2002 12:03 AM -- > Was Fred expelled or did his name simply disappear from the rolls? I > thought his name was simply dropped.<< Randy, Fred was simply and quietly dropped in Feb. 1999. So quietly he wasn't even informed about it; it didn't come out until Dave checked on his status. Michael McKenny was excommunicated by > the UHJ, wasn't he? << Michael was disenrolled in 1997; it's supposed to be a different thing than excommunication -- a term which only applies to covenant-breakers. Let's see, Nima resigned because he thinks we are a > cult.<< Well, Nima can speak for himself, but he resigned in the wake of the Talisman crackdown. It took him some time after to finally decide that the Baha'i Faith is a cult, at least from what I can glean from his posts. I've been going through early SRB posts, gathering information for my next writing project. Nima would probably hate me forever if I quoted some of the conventional-sounding statements he made way back then. :-) The way I see it, Nima became radicalized through bad experiences. Juan and Steve were blackmailed into resigning. Denis McEoin was > blackballed and resigned in disgust. << Yep. What about the others like the > Professor Walbridges, David Langness (he still have his rights removed?). > There must be others.<< Linda Walbridge resigned under the immediate pressure of the Talisman crackdown; I don't know precisely when, but it was in 1996. John resigned some time later -- he was still enrolled when Paul Johnson's Gnosis article came out. Last word I had on him is that he is now an Episcopalian. The last information I had on David Langness is that he is still enrolled and has not yet regained his administrative rights. The other person investigated in the Talisman crackdown is still a BIGS, and in fact, is the person who was the recipient of the Aug. 3 letter. Then, of course, there's Alison, whose case should be coming up soon in the NZ courts. She was disenrolled. Those, of course, are the "big cases"; I know of other people who have resigned membership under the pressure of being investigated, and there were others who resigned in protest over the Talisman crackdown. There have only been the three disenrollments, at least among Western believers: Michael, Fred, and Alison -- and Fred's case is still a bit confusing for me; I'm not precisely sure what happened. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Randy > -- > > Pat Kohli wrote in message > news:3C93FD20.6B631611@ameritel.net... > > > > FYI, Michael and Fred were disenrolled; Nima and Juan resigned. > > > > > > > > >The reaction of Peter Khan (and presumably the whole UHJ) to > > > >protests arising from people worried about the expulsion of > > > >Alison Marshall attests to that. PK appears to think that these > > > >letters of protest are an example of the "worldwide calamity" > > > >that SE expected. > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:19 AM > > That's really rather amusing because words have already been put in the House's > mouth by Nima and Juan and you didn't say a word of objection. Go back and > read the letter. It didn't say a word about evolution, parallel or otherwise. > As for saying I'm a fundamentalist, I think you guys have been saying that for > some time. << I've never called you a fundamentalist, Susan, and I think you know that. A few other choice things, I'll admit, but never a fundamentalist. Until now. The UHJ letter speaks for itself; it's public and everyone can read it. Whereas the words you twist lie buried in the archives of various forums, or are in private hands, so you are free to say anything you like about anybody with little risk of being called on it. The only reason I'm aware of how often you do this is that I'm frequently rummaging through archives in the course of my research, and I eventually run into things that people have actually said instead of what you said they said. Indeed, I've been looking through Baha'i Studies for my survey, and found two separate posters who are regulars there who asked you to stop putting words in their mouths. If, as you contend, this guy's real problem was that he held overly rigid views of infallibility, then why wouldn't the House address that, instead of showing him the door? If his research led him to doubt 'Abdu'l-Baha's infallibility based upon his views on evolution, then why not say that the two don't really have anything to do with each other? If he had come to Unenrolled Baha'i, I would have *discouraged* him from resigning for the reasons he outlined. But then, I believe in the harmony of science and religion, like 'Abdu'l-Baha did -- a principle that the House has just made utterly meaningless. So, I take it you *don't* believe in parallel evolution? Karen > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:14 PM > > > > If I want to know what Steve's views are, I'll go to Steve. > > This makes sense! If only Steve had asked the readers of TRB if they wanted to > read his piss outs with Susan! Alas, it didn't happen. Don't blame Susan for > Steve, 'kay? Pat, It's Susan that thinks she's qualified to go around informing everybody what Steve's views are. She's said this stuff about him numerous times; this time it got back to him and he decided to set the record straight. So don't blame Steve for Susan. > > > I've seen you do this again and again, and I used to > > think at first you were just misunderstanding people, > > but it's too consistent a pattern not to be deliberate. > > Given the confusion on wether the argument was that the "W&T" or the lesser > covenant was voided, I'm surprised that you would try to hang this on Susan, so > soon. It's not soon, Pat; it's rather late, in fact. Over the last two years, I've watched her try to discredit Baha'i liberals by saying that they said something they didn't, twisting words, or exagerating what was said. She's done the same with things I've said, saying "Didn't you say yada, yada, yada" when I didn't. I used to think it was just that she misunderstood or misremembered or something, but I eventually came to the conclusion it was deliberate. So, it's not just Steve; it's a whole lot of people. If she ever says I said something, check with me before you believe it. I don't know what her obsession is with quoting the supposedly damaging words of others anyway -- that's not how I spend my online time. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Blessings! > - Pat > kohli@ameritel.net > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:13 AM > > So it seems Juan and Nima very much put words in somebodies mouth.<< No defense like a good offense, eh? It still doesn't change my observations concerning your very consistent pattern of misrepresenting or exagerating the words of well-known liberals, especially if you're trying to prove that they deserved being screwed over by the Institutions. As for the letters, anyone can read them and decide for themselves what the implications are -- lots of people have told me they disagree with my reading, and well, that's life. We all have the right to examine things for ourselves and come up with our own conclusions. But you've been going around claiming that Steve said that the Covenant was null and void in 1921 for some time now, and if it were not for this being one occasion where that got back to him, you'd still be saying it and people wouldn't have had the opportunity to see for themselves what he really said and decide for themselves the implications. What about all the other things you've said about the positions various liberals supposedly took, where *you've* decided what the implications are, then given out your interpretation as the original position? I hardly > think that my saying someone's opinion renders the Will and Testament 'null and > void' who holds the Cause is now mutliated (and by the way, Steve initially > rejected my describing his views in that way as well) hardly constitutes the > same kind of misrepresentation. It seems to me what he is really objecting to > is not that I twisted his meaning in any tangible way, but that I phrased his > views in such a way that drew attention to its covenantal implications.<< By which you mean you put your own spin on it, then went running around using your words to describe what Steve really said. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: P.S. Date: Monday, April 01, 2002 8:58 PM > > PS of course protesting an injustice is a criminal act, in fact, the protest > itself is an admission of guilt!<< Yes, Randy; I've noticed that. I know of at least two people where taking their case to the UHJ was held against them, and one where it is likely. That's why I made my crack about people turning into cockroaches -- it amounts to a kind of silencing. In theory, Baha'is are free to appeal decisions, but they have to be worded so deferentially and so carefully that it is actually impossible to protest anything. (And, of course, if the poor schmuck doesn't realize ahead of time they are supposed to grovel in these letters, he's toast.) Presumably, if a person is treated unjustly, they can't say *good* things about the institution that mistreated them, but if they say *bad* things it is taken as evidence that a person is a trouble-maker. It makes a total mockery of the whole "you can always appeal a bad decision" stuff. I've seen enough of this stuff now, that I tell people *not* to write to the Institutions. It could just let you in for a world of hurt. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > -- > > Karen Bacquet wrote in message > news:uahpqn827dlded@corp.supernews.com... > > I don't think protesting an injustice is quite equivalent > > to a criminal act. Or maybe it is, in the Baha'i system, where we are > > apparently supposed to meekly accept injustice without a whimper. > > > > Karen > > https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:41 AM > > Might I suggest that it was the structure of Alison's own website that led you > to this conclusion.<< Actually, I began thinking that before her website ever went up. At the time a post of hers on the topic was getting wide circulation, and a lot of people were talking about it. > > > > >Being a mystic is part of who Alison is -- a big part. What's she supposed > >to do? Pretend not to be a mystic? > > No, just not tie the two things together the way she did.<< Tie together, how? By having both issues on the same website? On my website, I've got a whole lot of different things, from a reader's theater piece on the Gold Rush for fourth graders, to a page I did on the Shakers for a Religious Studies class I took for fun. I'm planning on putting up a page on the learning disorder hyperlexia, and writing an article on that. Is that somehow insidiously tied to my criticisms of the administration? Alison is a mystic; she writes poetry. It's who she is. The House of Justice kicked out a Baha'i mystic; that happened. Now, whether or not they kicked her out *because* she was a mystic is a matter for speculation. It does, however, probably have something to do with why hearts are touched by her story. Baha'u'llah is Alison's central reality; it takes an extremely narrow mindset to claim that she is not a Baha'i. > > >If I drew up a list of people most likely to be next in line to > >get nailed > > Hmm. So actually you do have a pretty fair idea of what is and isn't > acceptable.<< Well, they aren't kicking out fundamentalists, no matter how wacky their ideas are. As I told Paul, the people who got into trouble do have certain features in common -- they all were associated somehow with the Dialogue/Talisman crowd, all articulate and credible, and all had generally liberal views. Clearly, hanging with the Talismanians and having certain liberal opinions puts one at risk. When they will crack down again, and who specifically they will do it to is anybody's guess. But I'd bet my bottom dollar it won't be the loony-toons on Beliefnet. If they follow the previous pattern, it will be a Talismanian that is still enrolled, and an active liberal poster. Or, I still think there is the possibility that someone among the unenrolled will be anathematized in some way, although I think that's less likely, since there isn't a precedent. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > I notice they have used this same technique > >> in Alison's case trying to pretend she was being persecuted for being a > >mystic.<< > > > >I haven't seen anyone pretending that -- and I was there for this one. > > Dear Karen, > > Karen, you tried to say this yourself! This is what you wrote: > > "They don't want Alison in the Faith. They don't want mystic lovers of > Baha'u'llah in the Faith because all they want is mindless stupid robot- > like obedience." > > Now, granted there were other times you admitted this was likely. But other > times you asserted the contrary.<< Yep. I also speculated that it might have been Alison's views on infallibility that got her nailed, and probably somewhere echoed Juan's assertion that it had to do with her moderating Talisman. Immediately after she was kicked out I thought it was because of her review, but I later revised that as more information came in. Well, there's a solution for that; the UHJ can let us in on exactly what "misconceptions" that Alison had that were so terrible that it was worth booting her from the Faith over. > > Others tried to connect Alison's mysticism with her being removed from the > rolls as well. You may also recall a thread here that went like this: > > "And, what's wrong with talking about the Maid of heaven, and > modelling your personal spiritual life on the of Baha'u'llah, and > sharing your thoughts on what your explorations reveal?" > > Alison herself creates this impression by first introducing herself on her > website a mystic and then immediately announcing she has been expelled. The > website itself bears the name "Baha'i mysticism" but is devoted to denouncing > her removal from the rolls. The conclusion people are likely to draw is > obvious, that she was removed for being a mystic! << Being a mystic is part of who Alison is -- a big part. What's she supposed to do? Pretend not to be a mystic? Not mention her disenrollment on her website? I'm not entirely sure, myself, that her being a mystic really had nothing to do with her expulsion, because the UHJ has not made it clear what did, other than "disseminating" some unnamed "misconceptions" on the Internet. I've been running into people who think it was because of her stand on women's exclusion from the UHJ -- which is one of many, many speculations I've seen. As for her website, a good share of it *is* devoted to mysticism -- Alison's poetry and the translations of the houri tablets. If there is confusion about it, the all the House has to do is clear it up. Her court case should be coming up soon; maybe we'll get some clarification then. > > >Mostly what Juan says is that she was probably persecuted for moderating > >Talisman, > > Not likely. Juan has this strategy of setting people up as moderators who he > thinks might be in trouble with the AO already. That way he can later accuse > the AO of persecuting his moderators! I know one such person who was asked to > serve under these circumstances for precisely that reason.<< Well, it's pretty hard to find a Baha'i liberal that has been active online that might not potentially get into trouble with the AO anyway. It wouldn't take a lot of strategy. Just being liberal and actively posting on Talisman is a risk. If I drew up a list of people most likely to be next in line to get nailed, and another list of people who might be interested in moderating Talisman, they'd be pretty close to the same bunch. Who do you think he'd get as moderators? Rick Schaut and Dave Fiorito? Karen https://www.bacquet.tk From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:19 AM I haven't seen > one recently. > I still remember near enough what I signed in Australia about 20 years ago > because for whatever reason it appeared important to me at the time what I > was actually signing. It said > "I accept Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this Age (maybe Day?) > and wish to become a Baha'i" The card I signed here in the U.S. echoed Shoghi Effendi's statement, and pretty much stayed that way the entire time I was enrolled. It said that you accept Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this Day, His forerunner the Bab, the Center of His Covenant, 'Abdu'l-Baha. It also said that in signing the card you were aware that there were laws to be obeyed, although it didn't specify any, and said something either about obeying or recognizing the administration. When I declared, people came from out of town because there wasn't an LSA here. However, people who declared here after there was an LSA were never checked out like that. My recollection is that they just generally were making sure I knew what I was doing. I was pretty much aware of the basic Baha'i laws when I declared, but the administrative end of things was something I would never have guessed at. Rabbits kept being pulled out of hats. Some of it is that the dynamic of Baha'i community life is so completely different than that of the Christian churches most of us are accustomed to. Who would guess that administrative matters would be so central to everything? Who would guess that a religion that proudly proclaims that they "don't proselytize", but only teach the Faith to those who are interested, that "teaching" is a central focus of Baha'i activity? It didn't occur to me beforehand to ask whether or not women serve on the UHJ, because in all the literature the Faith produces on the equality of the sexes, the exclusion is never mentioned. I didn't know that the Baha'i institutions are expected to evolve into a theocracy. Covenant-breaking was explained to me in a way so nonsensical that it was hard to believe that anybody could ever actually do it nowadays. UHJ infallibility was so remote that I never really much thought about its implications. I thought prepublication review was basically just to make sure nothing wacko or really far out was published by Baha'is, not that academic work would be censored. All these problematic areas were either minimized, or simply not spoken of at all, when I was a seeker and new believer. The warning signs were there, if I had been in a skeptical frame of mind, which of course I definitely wasn't. So I was basically set up for getting shocked at several points. However, all this stuff is so complex that it would be a rare new believer who would be aware of it all. The deception is also helped in a big way that the myths that conservative Baha'is genuinely believe, like women's exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with gender equality, or that proselytizing means to convert by force, or that covenant-breaking groups aren't Baha'i sects. On Beliefnet, they were telling people that there is no such thing as excommunication in the Faith, tolerant souls that we are. And I'm sure they thought they were being honest. Anyway, there's just no way you could prepare someone for all of this before they came into the Faith, without causing him to turn tail and run for the hills before they ever signed a card. But the way things are done, it's just a set-up for disillusionment somewhere along the line. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > There was stuff on the back of the card which came closer to your big 5 > stuff but that was signed by a member of the Assenbly or some such. It was > basically a checklist that I had been informed of various things. Nothing > on the card said that they were criteria for membership. > > -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Randy Burns wrote in message news:R50r8.1317$WQ4.1102@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > Pat > > I missed your response as to where I can locate the NSA's statement > regarding the Chronology of Events surrounding the proposed publication of > "A Modest Proposal"? Where is this in writing or which NSA's members are > willing to be interviewed on the record about this occurance?<< Dear Randy, The post that got David in trouble wasn't about the chronology of "A Modest Proposal". It was about how he and the other Dialogue editors were interrogated and sanctioned. The point at issue was that David said he got a call from Robert Henderson while en route to pilgrimage, then frantically called around to other NSA members who didn't seem to know anything about it. He said he didn't believe the UHJ was behind the decision. *This* is the issue that the NSA seized on, that they acted without the knowledge or consent of the House, and the statement they wanted him to revoke. David's point was how the secret way Baha'i jurisprudence is handled makes things open to abuse, and he brought up his own case as an example. So basically, the whole hullaballoo was about whether it was the NSA or the UHJ that sanctioned him. However, the fact that he was complaining about how he and the other Dialogue editors were treated was almost certainly behind it -- they were supposed to just realize that they'd all done wrong and shut up about it. His retraction took place after he appealed to the UHJ, who told him that they were indeed behind the sanction. David posted the retraction concerning that, but the NSA said that it was dishonest because it implied that he'd just found out (i.e. through his appeals to the UHJ) that the UHJ was behind it, when he supposedly already knew that before his original post in October. There's a quote from one of David's letters that has been used to prove that; I've also heard that quote was a frustrated and sarcastic response to the tangled mess of the Dialogue affair. (I'm trying to recover where I found that.) All of this is very hard for the observer to sort out completely. In fact, both David and Steve Scholl speak of confusion and mixed messages on the part of the institutions about all this, and I can sure see why. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Cheers, Randy > > > > > > Pat Kohli wrote in message > > news:3CA94E44.B28A20FA@ameritel.net... > > > > "In the beginning of 1996, I think, just before the time that I signed off > > from > > Talisman, David Lagness' chronology of the events surrounding the proposed > > publication of "A Modest Proposal" in Dialogue Magazine differed from that > > of > > the NSA. After being told that he was wrong and that he should retract > > his > > statements or lose his administrative rights, David posted a message on > > Talisman in which he, in effect, said that if the NSA's version is true, > > the he > > was wrong. The Universal House Justice in response felt that David had > > not > > actually retracted his statements and therefore told the NSA that they > > could > > remove David's rights if they felt it was warranted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Balancing quotes Date: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:35 PM Oh, and I should have included this -- still from David, still from the same post. "Which leads me to my last point. I reacted strongly to a single line in X's post, which read: "This is how factions start." I would beg to differ. Factions start when discussion gets closed off, not when it is allowed to flourish. Every rebellious faction that ever existed grew under repression. If you want to radicalize a rebellious group, just marginalize them and repress and criminalize their ideas." I figure that one's real food for thought. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk Still slogging through the old Talisman in search of posts on the exclusion. I thought this one was interesting, from David Langness: "Characterizing our discussion as unproductive commits the Western fallacy that all human interaction must have a goal. Have we become so corporatized that each discussion we have has to be attached to a goal and objective? Why can't we just talk? Must we always close off the consultation with a value judgement like "I deem this subject unworthy or unproductive, so let's talk about something else?" Certainly, it's obvious to all of us that the House has ruled on this issue and will not change its ruling in the foreseeable future. No one that I know of doubts or disputes that ruling. But achieving understanding means much more than blind acceptance -- it means discussing and digesting the ramifications, both philosophical and active, of the ruling." -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Karen Bacquet wrote in message news:uao0viq5mi9t8a@corp.supernews.com... > Just thought I'd put in some other things that were being said about women's > exclusion on the first Talisman by our favorite band of heretics. > > From Juan: "I should make clear that I think the final determination of > this matter > always lies with the Universal House of Justice; that I am satisfied > that at any one time they have made the best jurisprudential decision they > possibly could, in a morally immaculate (ma`su:m) fashion; and that > studying such issues and attempting to formulate principles of Baha'i > jurisprudence is only a form of individual interpretation, which is > without authority and yet nevertheless open to every Baha'i." > > "(I think it is important to point out that Jackson has > said > explicitly that he does not think the 1988 ruling indicates any prejudice > whatsoever on the House's part toward women, and I agree with him; I > think it also was the right decision for the time)." > > > "Clearly, it is the Universal House of Justice that would > elucidate the > texts and legislate on the issue. But first surely there should be an > informed debate in the community and all the relevant texts should be put > into context. This process has only begun. Moreover, I do not see how > they can decide an issue like this for all time. The issue of the end of > the Guardianship is different, because the candidates had to be living at > that time. I suspect they are all dead by now. I do not see a similar > window of opportunity for any ruling on the issue of women, and the > debate may well go on for a long time. Remember, we are the first > generation of Baha'is without a living, divinely-inspired Interpreter. > The House is right to be cautious; but we must find a way to go forward, > and scholarship can be of help here. > > The advice to be firm in the covenant in the meantime is wise and > necessary. We can always wait for the next Manifestation--who knows what > She will legislate? " > > From John Walbridge: > > . ""Women reckoned as men": There are several problems > with this line of argument. First, there is no reason to suppose > that it overrules specific cases in which women and men are > treated differently. It presumably doesn't, for example, in > the case of inheritance law. Second, there is no evidence that > any of these texts were written as general rules on the relations > between men and women in society. Third, 'Abdu'l-Baha cites > this theme in the context of a tablet denying women the right > to serve on the House of Justice. Fourth, there is an explicit > interpretation of the Guardian applying this principle to the > Universal House of Justice. Although I myself see no reason > why women should not have been allowed to serve on the > House, I do not see how they can be allowed to within a > Baha'i framework of legal interpretation." > > . ""Referent of "House of Justice": Clearly, Abdu'l-Baha thought that > women were barred from *some* House of Justice, which leads me > to suspect that he had this directly from Baha'u'llah, although it is > not clear to me why Baha'u'llah should have specified this. This leaves > two possibilities open: (1) that AB exercised Interpretation to allow > women on lower Houses, rather in the way he banned bigamy; or (2) > when LSAs are once again Houses of Justice, women will be off of > them as well." > > > Karen again: I'm not finished combing the Talisman archives; there may well > be more such moderate-to-conservative statements out of this crowd of > evil-doers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, Susan, you think you can do us a one sentence summary of the > official and actual reason Alison was booted? So we'll all know, once > and for all?<< Dear Paul, Susan has been claiming for a long time that Alison got booted for "continually" saying that the UHJ was in violation of the Covenant in some of their actions. Exactly on what basis she is saying this, I'm not sure. The only evidence I have seen for this is a privately-circulated letter, which was actually put into circulation by -- surprise! -- Susan herself. (However, I didn't know that at the time I saw it; it was sent to me by someone else, who wanted my opinion on it.) So, we've got a single doubtful statement on it. Personally, I don't buy that as the cause -- although Alison may have said something along these lines once (certainly not "continually"), but I wouldn't trust it out of context. I don't know if I still have that letter; it was sent to me in the days before I had a computer at home, and the person who sent it to me was very concerned about confidentiality, and I might have deleted it, possibly at his request. My recollection is that a lot of it had to do with mutilation theory, or at least my answer to it did -- this was way back, probably not long after Alison got bounced. The House's silence on this point invites speculation. It's not surprising some people think it's because she's a mystic -- virtually everything that Alison ever said or wrote is bound to be up for scrutiny when we don't know what the actual cause of her expulsion was. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Mark Elderkin wrote in message news:a8iimq$8qd$1@austar-news.austar.net.au... > Certainly Karen, this is not about free-expression, as you seem to think, it > is about realizing the consequences of ones' actions(words are actions as > they do not create themselves) You would like to think that you are totally > unanswerable to any higher authority other than your own self-elevated self > ....... Maybe a visit to another group ie. Salvation Army, Lutherans, LDS. > or even Scientology will produce the freedom that you seem to think is > missing from this Faith. Bet you'll be back................ Oh, I have visited other groups. The Scientology newsgroups are eerily reminiscent of the Baha'i ones, with disgruntled ex-members making complaints, along with loyalists doing their damndest to discredit them. As for the Mormons, there is a similar liberal/conservative split going on there. They've even got their very own liberal magazine, Sandstone, which has caused some controversy, and the editor had to resign -- from the magazine, not from the church. This Mormon version of Dialogue has lasted over twelve years, and it doesn't even have to submit its articles for prepublication review. So, yes, there is more freedom of expression allowed to Mormons, in spite of it being a generally conservative church which believes its leadership is speaking with the voice of God. And they usually excommunicate over moral failings like adultery, and apparently haven't booted anybody over their emails. (I asked them.) The Lutherans are too substantial a church to be monitoring their adherents' email for signs of heresy -- besides, there are conservative and liberal Lutheran groups. Salvation Army is more heirarchical, but oriented towards service more than theology, as I understand it. In any case, a Protestant Christian would have their pick of groups, and could easily find one that is congenial, and nearly all would allow an adherent free expression without accusing them of having an ego problem for wanting it. I'm not, however, a Christian. So you're stuck with me. But it's a total myth that the Baha'i Faith allows its members more, or even equal, freedom than other religious groups. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > M > Of course, you won't get many members that way, > > but at least you won't have troublesome folks like myself that believe in > > free expression hanging around, which I'm sure would make you much > happier. > > > > So ..... it looks like someone is ahead of me. Now, where do I go to read these > accounts? Is it time to put together an unabridged account of close encounters > with ABMs, so that we can see this was standard practice, before the internet?<< One of the stories is on Talisman, and I'd have to dig it up. The other is available at https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/Ex16.htm You ought to remember it, since this person also posted it on Beliefnet. Here's the key paragraph: "What happened next when the LSA met with the Administrative representatives was something that I had kept to myself for over twenty years. We, the Local Spiritual Assembly members, thought we were going to be praised for all the teaching activity that had occurred and tripling the number of new believers. On the contrary, we were seated in a large hotel suite and then I was read a list of charges against me which included "conspiring" with Mr. Smith to run the Local Spiritual Assembly from out of state and for "claiming a station", whatever that meant. When I protested and attempted to defend myself, I was told to "sit down and shut up, we know all about you and anything you say will be just lies." I said I was leaving and they locked and blocked the door leading out of the room, there were about seven of them and they forced me and the other members of the Local Spiritual Assembly to listen to them for two hours. This is what the Bahá'is call "loving and frank consultation". I was humiliated, demeaned and my character assassinated in this meeting. Two of the members of the Local Spiritual Assembly came to my defense and stated that the charges were not true and that the picture that was being presented of me by them was inaccurate. My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants". The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith." > > "Know of thy own knowledge and not through the knowlege of thine neighbor" > > -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Pat Kohli wrote in message news:3CB060D6.3D733FB4@ameritel.net... > > Karen Bacquet wrote: > > > > > The days when ABMs could block the door, tell people to sit down and shut up > > because any defense they would offer would be a lie, and harangue them for > > two hours straight are gone -- because those stories end up on the Internet. > > Ahh the good ol' days - almost seems like Camelot, ya know?<< Scoff if you like, but I've seen two separate stories, in two different parts of the country, taking place years apart, where someone who was suspected of wanting a "leadership" role was treated in exactly this fashion. The door was blocked and the person not allowed to leave -- a situation which, if a person had some gumption, they could report to the police. The ABM told them "Sit down and shut up. We know all about you, and anything you say will be lies." In both cases, this came as a complete surprise, and they were not allowed to defend themselves at all; they just had to sit there and get yelled at. One left the Faith soon after the incident; the other did several years later. I thought it was pretty striking how similar the stories were, even to the exact words the ABM used. Either there's one rogue ABM who has served in different parts of the country over a long period of years, or this was standard procedure for a person that is perceived as getting too uppity. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Is someone saving a small selection of those good ol' days, maybe some > interviews of the victims of these lock-ins, where ABMs did "block the door, > tell people to sit down and shut up because any defense they would offer would > be a lie, and harangue them for two hours straight" I wouldn't want to think > that such important facets of Baha'is AO history will fade into urban legend. > Over the next decades of course, would be the time to record _all_ of these > things for posterity. > > In short there is simply not > a more convenient spot > for happily ever aftering > than here in Camelot! > > > > >She was > > >> certainly no enemy to Alison. > > >> > > > > > >She was certainly no friend! > > > > Actually, she was. Ask Alison. > > > > I mean, by her actions she proved otherwise. If she was such > a good friend, how come Alison didn't get a heads up that the > "counselling meeting" for her entire community, was *actually* > aimed personally at her, and that reports from that meeting > might well lead to the suspension of her membership of > the Faith? Dear Paul, It is possible that this ABM actually didn't know that. I do know that in posts Steve has made of this whole thing, that this person was thought of as a friend, and that she and Alison spent quite a while just chatting in a friendly visit. Another thing is that when asked about "internal opposition", she said that she was aware of no problems on South Island. This was at the first meeting anyway. I don't know if this particular ABM was involved with the second meeting, which Alison only stayed at for about five minutes. We'll get more documentation of what happened after Alison's case gets to court, which should be very soon now. This whole thing, if they really intended to "counsel" Alison was quite terribly botched. However, I don't know if we can say for certain which individuals were to blame for that. I think largely the problem is that the UHJ is trying to "warn" people while at the same time avoiding publicity fallout, at least in the form of having counsellors' letters put on the Internet, or people posting their experiences of being grilled. (It's actually too late for that, too many people over too many years have had run-ins with ABMs -- they're going to tell their experiences on the Internet.) After the Talisman crackdown, they started sending two ABMs instead of one (that actually happened here in the late '90s, although I didn't know why then), then in Alison's case they tried this subtle approach. Who knows what they will come up with next? But the cold, hard fact is, that if they want to punish people for their email, they are going to pay a price for it in bad publicity, no matter how they go about it. The days when ABMs could block the door, tell people to sit down and shut up because any defense they would offer would be a lie, and harangue them for two hours straight are gone -- because those stories end up on the Internet. Love, Karen > > With friends like that... > > Paul > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Dialogue - was the UHJ directly responsible for the shut down of "Dialogue" Date: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:11 AM > > > > Kick that horse a little harder, Fred. You never know, maybe it'll > come back to life one day if you kick it hard enough.<< If that horse weren't still alive and kicking, Jay, this young man would not have written to Fred asking about it. This is what suppression of information does -- it keeps old things alive. If we had ever really dealt with this issue as a community, it *would* be in the past, but it comes as news to people when they get online. I have said more than once that if I had read "A Modest Proposal" in the pages of Dialogue in 1988, instead of on the Internet eleven years later, I'd still be an enrolled Baha'i today. As most people on this forum are aware, I was so enraged that such a harmless document was suppressed that I resigned my membership within a few days of reading it. I had been at the 1988 Convention, where the magazine was denounced, and felt like I had been directly lied to. I am out here today because of to what was done to Dialogue, along with the Talisman crackdown. This kind of coercion and suppression is directly opposite to everything I ever believed it meant to be a Baha'i. The Dialogue episode was a key factor in the tensions between the administration and Baha'i liberals -- the people involved never forgot how they were treated. The post that got David Langness in trouble was one recounting his experience of being sanctioned because of his involvement with the magazine -- and the NSA's punitive response to David's post is what led to the Majnun post, and ultimately, the Talisman crackdown and the polarized situation we have in Baha'i cyberspace today. Two things keep Dialogue alive: the first is that so many Baha'is have no clue what happened until they get on the Internet, and the second is that it is part of an overall pattern of punitive action on the part of the Institutions. The only way for that horse to die is for the administration to stop punishing people for holding liberal views of Baha'i teaching. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Dialogue - was the UHJ directly responsible for the shut down of "Dialogue" Date: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:49 PM > I'm sorry, Karen, but I can't see the logic in recanting your faith in > a religion simply because you don't agree with the administration's > decisions.<< Jay, Except that faith in the Baha'i administration is so much a part of being a traditional Baha'i -- and you know it. At the time I resigned, I was hurt, angry, and uncertain of what I really did believe. I did not "recant my faith" exactly. What I said was "If this is the system Baha'u'llah wanted, then he cannot be a Manifestation of God; if Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God, then this is not the system He wanted." After several months, I found I could not walk away from Baha'u'llah, but there was no way I could support this kind of action on the part of the administration -- especially when it was not just a matter of the NSA, but the UHJ as well. > > What an utterly foolish reason to recind one's faith. I agree that > suppression is wrong and that what happened with both Dialogue *and* > Talisman weren't exactly fair. But did I personally have a hand in > those proceedings? Does it make *me* as a person look any better/worse > by saying that I'm a Baha'i even when the AO blunders? I should hope > frickin' not! If anyone is going to judge me (including myself) on the > basis of the AO's actions then they're not really paying attention to > the full scope of "ye shall know them by their fruits."<< Whether or not being an enrolled Baha'i makes me look better or worse is not at all the issue. It's a matter what I can support in good conscience. And I *would* be required to support these actions, or at least remain silent. If I were not already off the rolls, I'd almost be certainly next in line for disenrollment, as vocal as I've been. If I were to seek re-instatement, I'd be thoroughly examined about my opinions on these issues to make sure I had the right ones. , I > would *still* not recant my faith- officially or unofficially- because > they are not the measure of my faith in Baha'u'llah.<< They aren't the measure of my faith. That's exactly the point. Now that I'm out, the administration has nothing at all to do with my faith in God, or in Baha'u'llah. They can do nothing, now, to take it away from me. > > That horse can finally rest when the AO admits its errors (if it ever > does, which, let's face it, probably won't ever happen) OR when the > people who took exception to it simply let it go and stop *beating a > dead horse into the ground*. Doing so does not serve the Cause, it > does not make the Baha'i Faith (as a greater community) seem any > healthier, it does not speak highly of the "whistle-blower" and > certainly won't solve the problem of the past. All it does is open > doors to *more* problems in the future.<< I don't know how you propose problems will be solved. Assenting to injustice does not make it go away. Silence just leave them free to do it again and again without any accountability for their actions. I don't expect any big apologies will be forthcoming for past actions -- for one thing they think they made good decisions and aren't sorry for what they've done at all. However, if there is to be change in the future, they must be held publicly accountable, to pay that price in bad p.r. > > I am *not* saying that the issues and mistakes of the past should be > ignored, but I *am* saying that nothing will be gained by making > public spectacles out of events that the greater public wouldn't fully > understand without *lots* of background information. If you simply cut > to the chase and say, "The Baha'i Faith suppresses its members and > censors information," then you're telling a half-truth that isn't > qualified by full disclosure or accurate historical account. And the > general public won't think far enough ahead to ask for the finer > details. They'll take what you tell them, as a former Baha'i and > someone who's "been there", for rote because, hey, you've got a bunch > of URLs and reference links to back your claims up *should* anyone > actually want to backcheck your information. But then, all your > references and backchecks would serve only to support your narrowed, > bottom-line claim instead of giving the broader scope of the situation > and making it clear that these are isolated incidents and not > necessarily the normal way things are done within the Baha'i Faith. > Oh, Heavens forbid that people should ever utter the phrase "exception > fo the rule."<< It isn't an exception. It is a clear pattern of behavior going back for many years. I'll believe it's stopped when several years go by and no more liberals have been booted out or otherwise punished for airing their opinions. It is a hopeful sign that nothing major has happened since Alison's expulsion in 2000. I'm watching and waiting for signs of change. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Kick that horse a little harder, Fred. You never know, maybe it'll > >> come back to life one day if you kick it hard enough.<< > > > >If that horse weren't still alive and kicking, Jay, this young man would not > >have written to Fred asking about it. This is what suppression of > >information does -- it keeps old things alive. If we had ever really dealt > >with this issue as a community, it *would* be in the past, but it comes as > >news to people when they get online. I have said more than once that if I > >had read "A Modest Proposal" in the pages of Dialogue in 1988, instead of on > >the Internet eleven years later, I'd still be an enrolled Baha'i today. As > >most people on this forum are aware, I was so enraged that such a harmless > >document was suppressed that I resigned my membership within a few days of > >reading it. I had been at the 1988 Convention, where the magazine was > >denounced, and felt like I had been directly lied to. I am out here today > >because of to what was done to Dialogue, along with the Talisman crackdown. > >This kind of coercion and suppression is directly opposite to everything I > >ever believed it meant to be a Baha'i. > > > > The Dialogue episode was a key factor in the tensions between the > >administration and Baha'i liberals -- the people involved never forgot how > >they were treated. The post that got David Langness in trouble was one > >recounting his experience of being sanctioned because of his involvement > >with the magazine -- and the NSA's punitive response to David's post is what > >led to the Majnun post, and ultimately, the Talisman crackdown and the > >polarized situation we have in Baha'i cyberspace today. Two things keep > >Dialogue alive: the first is that so many Baha'is have no clue what happened > >until they get on the Internet, and the second is that it is part of an > >overall pattern of punitive action on the part of the Institutions. The > >only way for that horse to die is for the administration to stop punishing > >people for holding liberal views of Baha'i teaching. > > > >Karen > >https://www.bacquet.tk > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Dialogue - was the UHJ directly responsible for the shut down of "Dialogue" Date: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:43 PM > > So, in essence, you had a personal crisis *of* faith- without > recanting it entirely, which was remedied by resigning from the rolls.<< Yep, pretty much. > You did so because you felt maintaining your membership on the rolls > was, in some way, condoning the actions of the AO. I'm sorry, I can > sympathize with your frustration at the AO, but I just don't see how > it serves as a good reason to resign.<< Well, ya know Jay, it wasn't your decision. The NSA seemed to be satisfied with my reasons and accepted my resignation. You made a knee-jerk response to > a situation. I understand that you may feel free from contraint as a > disenrolled Baha'i, but it comes at a cost. You have no voting rights, > no way to serve *within* the Cause in an effort to effect change > through your own means. You gave up your ability to *help* make > changes while retaining the abiliity to at least gripe about the > changes that haven't been made.<< The Dialogue people tried to effect change from within, and they just ended up out on their asses. They don't *want* change from the grassroots. And my vote wasn't worth a plugged nickel. During the *best* year here, I got to pick the best nine out of twelve for my LSA -- most of the time there wasn't even that much choice. During the last five years I was enrolled I was technically an isolated believer because of the idiotic way locality lines are drawn (another grassroots reform for which they consistently ignore appeals) -- I couldn't even find out when Feast was most of the time. I could vote for a delegate I thought was a good Baha'i and hope they made wise decisions back in Wilmette -- so much for making change. All that would happen if I were enrolled is that my voice would be taken away. > > >Whether or not being an enrolled Baha'i makes me look better or worse is not > >at all the issue. It's a matter what I can support in good conscience. And > >I *would* be required to support these actions, or at least remain silent. > >If I were not already off the rolls, I'd almost be certainly next in line > >for disenrollment, as vocal as I've been. If I were to seek re-instatement, > >I'd be thoroughly examined about my opinions on these issues to make sure I > >had the right ones. > > I think that is assigning too much of a "getsapo" image on the face of > the AO.<< I don't have to assign an image; all I have to do is look at what they've done. I've been more critical. than Alison Marshall ever was; if I had been enrolled when I started, I almost certainly would have shared her fate. Those among the liberals who have made tentative efforts toward reinstatement report that some major grovelling, along with distancing from former friends, is required. That's one reason it's not a popular option. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take," Wayne Gretzky > once said. While you stay out of the Faith in any official capacity, > you are not *able* to take a shot at effecting change- which is > something I'm sure you dearly want.<< I had no voice, no chance to change anything while I was enrolled. Now, I have an influence. I hear from Baha'is all the time who tell me how my writing has touched them -- and most of these Baha'is are still enrolled. > > Conversely, neither can you really do anything about affecting the > Faith towards a greater good, as it seems you wish to do. All you can > do is look for where it fails, has failed, will fail... and totally > miss out on the successes.<< I always give credit, in my articles, for developments in the faith I see as positive. I don't live in a black-and-white world, Jay -- I never said everything in the Faith is totally terrible. > > I certainly don't propose silence as a solution! But I *do* think that > beating the drum to an audience that isn't geared to listen is, well, > kinda *asking* for a shocked and silent response. At most you'll get > some outrage, some "This must change!", some confusion, some > conjecture... but you'll be hard pressed to get solutions by beating > that drum so loudly at *us*.... when the AO is just a mailbox away....<< The AO won't listen, but people lurking on this newsgroup will. I know they do; they tell me all the time. Just while I was typing this response to you, I received a very kind message from another Baha'i who supports what I'm doing out here. That's what really keeps me going. If what I was saying was just falling flat, and did not strike a real chord with people, I wouldn't keep on doing it. And these people will take the ideas discussed on the Internet back to their communities. This is a newsgroup for the discussion of issues in the Baha'i Faith -- I don't know why you'd think another audience would be better. There is no reform without the free circulation of ideas; that's where it starts. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Individual conscience... Date: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:02 AM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Randy Burns wrote in message news:bipB8.12961$n3.9770@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > Do you have a statement from Martin that disavows this quote? If not then > tough luck, he is pretty much stuck with this quote on his back. Maybe he > would like to take it back now? Feel free to directly quote him on this > subject. Dear Randy, This isn't an idea that Martin just recently came up with; he's been saying it for years. I found this in that little series called "The Power of the Covenant" publishedby the NSA of Canada in 1977. The authors were Douglas Martin, Peter Khan, and Jane Faily. This idea connecting Christianity with the belief in individual conscience is repeated in Part 3: The Face of Opposition, on page 28. It says that the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit allows every individual to claim inspiration and therefore, opens the door to sectarianism. The passage continues: "The result was to create in the minds of most Christians a vague assumption that, when the individual prays directly to God, he receives guidance through his private conscience. Many times, the promptings of conscience contradict the apparent meaning of Christian scriptures (as in the case of St. Paul's statements on celibacy) or the explicit teachings of a particular church (as with race relationships). Increasingly, however, it is conscience which is regarded as the reliable guide, a guide which has no objective check on it." Even more striking on p. 30: "This system of belief has had many admirable results in the individual spiritual life. Its unrestrained influence on social history, however, reveals many limitations. It permitted the growth of the conviction not only that personal conscience is the ultimate authority in life, but also that personal freedom is the highest good. The rise of a democratic political philosophy and democratic processes in the West gave the final blessing to this doctrine of individualism. "Christianity" and "Democracy" in time blended in the public mind as one vaguely defined, but immensely influential popular cult of individualism, embracing people of all religious denominations. Such a cult differs in several important ways from the Teachings of Baha'u'llah". While, of course, this is not a direct quote from Martin himself, and he was not the only author here, the similarity to the notes taken from his talk pretty strongly suggests that this is, indeed, his attitude about Christianity, Democracy, and the conscience of the individual. And the fact that this came out in an official publication of the NSA carries some weight -- this was part of an effort to deepen people on the Covenant, so presumably it reflects what they think is "correct" Baha'i teaching. There have also been remarks in more recent UHJ letters disparaging the role of individual conscience. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Cheers, Randy > > -- > > Jordan Rager wrote in message > news:ab40bs$e0n$1@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca... > > Look: Mr. Martin did not say those words, so why quote him as doing such? > > Find out what exactly he has said and then argue with that. No one is > trying > > to dodge a bullet here. I just think it is silly to hold a man to words > that > > do not belong to him. Moreover, I think it is wrong to slander an > individual > > or a body. Why do you consistently try to defame and malign the Universal > > House of Justice? What part of the covenant did you opt out of when you > > professed your belief in it initially? > > > > > > > > Member of the uhj: > > > "We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our > > > individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the > end, > > > in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the > > > greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions > > or > > > opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent > > to > > > "taking partners with God" which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the > > > Faith." -Doug Martin > > > https://www.bahai-library.org/talks/martin.watson.html (Find > > > "conscience") > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience > > > https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship > > > > > > > > > "Jordan Rager" wrote in message > > > news:ab03cc$a1u$1@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca... > > > > I think the key to Mr. Sylvester's point is that he is paraphrasing > > > > sections of Mr. Martin's talk and that nothing has been transcribed > > > > verbatim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Individual conscience... Date: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:02 AM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Bahai Faith wrote in message news:ab67ve$fnoat$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de... > "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message > news:udd3787ql6j0f3@corp.supernews.com... > > > > There have also been remarks in more recent UHJ letters disparaging > >the role of individual conscience. > > Karen, > > When you have a chance, could you quote those disparaging uhj letters? > > I'm sure I would not be alone in finding them interesting. Dear Fred, I was thinking of the following passage from the Feb. 8, 1998 letter to Susan Maneck, which I'm sure she has quoted here before. I'm including the whole context -- one the on hand they uphold freedom of conscience, then on the other speak about how limited it is. There is again, in this passage the disparagement of Christianity that we saw in the other quotes mentioned here. Basically, the only real "freedom" that Baha'is have is the freedom to leave the Faith. Love, Karen ****************** This brings us to the specific points raised in your email of 17 November 1997. As you well understand, not only the right but also the responsibility ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. 8 February 1998 Page 3 ". . . of each believer to explore truth for himself or herself are fundamental to the Baha'i teachings. This principle is an integral feature of the coming of age of humankind, inseparable from the social transformation to which Baha'u'llah is calling the peoples of the world. It is as relevant to specifically scholarly activity as it is to the rest of spiritual and intellectual life. Every human being is ultimately responsible to God for the use which he or she makes of these possibilities; conscience is never to be coerced, whether by other individuals or institutions. Conscience, however, is not an unchangeable absolute. One dictionary definition, although not covering all the usages of the term, presents the common understanding of the word "conscience" as "the sense of right and wrong as regards things for which one is responsible; the faculty or principle which pronounces upon the moral quality of one's actions or motives, approving the right and condemning the wrong". The functioning of one's conscience, then, depends upon one's understanding of right and wrong; the conscience of one person may be established upon a disinterested striving after truth and justice, while that of another may rest on an unthinking predisposition to act in accordance with that pattern of standards, principles and prohibitions which is a product of his social environment. Conscience, therefore, can serve either as a bulwark of an upright character or can represent an accumulation of prejudices learned from one's forebears or absorbed from a limited social code. A Baha'i recognizes that one aspect of his spiritual and intellectual growth is to foster the development of his conscience in the light of divine Revelation -- a Revelation which, in addition to providing a wealth of spiritual and ethical principles, exhorts man "to free himself from idle fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness His glorious handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye". This process of development, therefore, involves a clear-sighted examination of the conditions of the world with both heart and mind. A Baha'i will understand that an upright life is based upon observance of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he recognizes as essential for the well-being of both the individual and society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his own personal conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an Assembly at the outcome of consultation. In the discussion of wisdom in your email of 21 September 1997, you observe that maybe "Baha'i academics all too often have not recognized that to a great extent failure to exercise wisdom represents a failure of love." The House of Justice agrees that the exercise of wisdom calls for a measure of love and the development of a sensitive conscience. These, in turn, involve not only devotion to a high standard of uprightness, but also consideration of the effects of one's words and actions. A Baha'i's duty to pursue an unfettered search after truth should lead him to understand the Teachings as an organic, logically coherent whole, should cause him to examine his own ideas and motives, and should enable him to see ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. 8 February 1998 Page 4 that adherence to the Covenant, to which he is a party, is not blind imitation but conscious choice, freely made and freely followed. In many of His utterances, `Abdu'l-Baha extols governments which uphold freedom of conscience for their citizens. As can be seen from the context, these statements refer to the freedom to follow the religion of one's choice. In the original of a passage to which you refer in your email of 17 November 1997, He gives the following analysis of freedom. There are three types of freedom. The first is divine freedom, which is one of the inherent attributes of the Creator for He is unconstrained in His will, and no one can force Him to change His decree in any matter whatsoever.... The second is the political freedom of Europeans, which leaves the individual free to do whatsoever he desires as long as his action does not harm his neighbour. This is natural freedom, and its greatest expression is seen in the animal world. Observe these birds and notice with what freedom they live. However much man may try, he can never be as free as an animal, because the existence of order acts as an impediment to freedom. The third freedom is that which is born of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Almighty. This is the freedom of the human world, where man severs his affections from all things. When he does so, he becomes immune to all hardship and sorrow. Wealth or material power will not deflect him from moderation and fairness, neither will poverty or need inhibit him from showing forth happiness and tranquillity. The more the conscience of man develops, the more will his heart be free and his soul attain unto happiness. In the religion of God, there is freedom of thought because God, alone, controls the human conscience, but this freedom should not go beyond courtesy. In the religion of God, there is no freedom of action outside the law of God. Man may not transgress this law, even though no harm is inflicted on one's neighbour. This is because the purpose of Divine law is the education of all -- others as well as oneself -- and, in the sight of God, the harm done to one individual or to his neighbour is the same and is reprehensible in both cases. Hearts must possess the fear of God. Man should endeavour to avoid that which is abhorrent unto God. Therefore, the freedom that the laws of Europe offer to the individual does not exist in the law of God. Freedom of thought should not transgress the bounds of courtesy, and actions, likewise, should be governed by the fear of God and the desire to seek His good pleasure. Education of the individual Baha'i in the Divine law is one of the duties of Spiritual Assemblies. In a letter to a National Assembly on 1 March 1951, Shoghi Effendi wrote: The deepening and enrichment of the spiritual life of the individual believer, his increasing comprehension of the essential verities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. 8 February 1998 Page 5 underlying this Faith, his training in its administrative processes, his understanding of the fundamentals of the Covenants established by its Author and the authorized Interpreter of its teachings, should be made the supreme objectives of the national representatives responsible for the edification, the progress and consolidation of these communities. Such is the duty resting on the elected institutions of the Faith for the promotion of the spiritual, moral and ethical lives of the individual believers. Parallel with this, the Baha'i Faith upholds the freedom of conscience which permits a person to follow his chosen religion: no one may be compelled to become a Baha'i, or to remain a Baha'i if he conscientiously wishes to leave the Faith. As to the thoughts of the Baha'is themselves -- that is those who have chosen to follow the religion of Baha'u'llah -- the institutions do not busy themselves with what individual believers think unless those thoughts become expressed in actions which are inimical to the basic principles and vital interests of the Faith. With regard to the accusation that to make such distinctions borders on restriction of the freedom of speech, one should accept that civil society has long recognized that utterance can metamorphose into behaviour, and has taken steps to protect itself and its citizens against such behaviour when it becomes socially destructive. Laws against sedition and hate-mongering are examples that come readily to mind. It will surely be clear to you from the above comments that the categories of "issues of doctrinal heresy which must therefore be suppressed" and "the imposition of orthodoxy on the Baha'i community", to which you refer, are concepts essentially drawn from the study of Christianity and are inapplicable to the far more complex interrelationships and principles established by the Baha'i Faith." > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience > https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship > > > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: It's a FACT - More Hits than USA bahais - 28,000+ The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Date: Sunday, May 19, 2002 2:12 AM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Freethought110 wrote in message news:newscache$u3ecwg$r06$1@elise.onthenet.com.au... > Amazing, Karen, how party-line Baha'i hacks will spout off the party-line > for so long they actually start believing their own tripe and obfuscation > after awhile. Kohli is a classic example of it. What strikes me, Nima, is that he seems to think that my entire argument hinges on this one statistic, and that I should alter my conclusions because the numbers of the poll have changed. Geez, even the higher-ups in the administration admit that disillusionment is a problem. Just recently, a new list for those dissatisfied with community life has been started, by a person who has no connection whatsoever with the liberals, and who I've only seen on quite conventional forums -- and she reports taking heat for daring to face this head-on. Again and again, people who came into the Faith during the 70s report that most of the friends who declared with at the same time they did have long since disappeared -- whether that has been officially recorded or not -- and I've seen this in real life as well as the Internet. I'm constantly getting contacted by people, mostly because of my own story, and the great majority of them tell me their own tales of alienation. And Unenrolled Baha'i never lacks for new subscribers. As I have often said, if I did not get response from people who are constantly telling me "You've hit the nail on the head", I wouldn't be doing what I do out here -- I'd go away and just figure I was weird or something. I find myself very suspicious of those who want to paint this picture of a happy, thriving, growing community; it's like they aren't even living on the same planet. Love, Karen > > -- > Freethought110 From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: It's a FACT - More Hits than USA bahais - 28,000+ The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Date: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:53 AM Aw, geez! Is this still going on? Paul is absolutely correct in that I did not hold out the number of 28,000 as being a kind of absolutely accurate figure. For one thing, as I've said again and again, absolute figures on *any* religious group are as rare as hen's teeth. Most religious groups exaggerate their numbers to some extent (except the Unitarians, who more people identify themselves with in polls than actually register with that church). I said the number "may be as low as" the 1990 Kosmin figure. I also noted that Wilmette challenged that figure, and that part of the undercount may have been because the pollsters failed to take into account family members -- you know, spouses, adult children still living at home, elderly parents that they're taking care of. It is quite clear from the footnote that the 28,000 is an undercount. The main thesis of my argument in my article was that a high rate of disillusionment exists among converts to the Baha'i Faith, mostly due to the wide descrepancy between the religion's projected public image and the lived reality, and real beliefs, of many of its adherents. Therefore, any number that shows a gap between the numbers that Wilmette gives out, and the real number of Baha'is active in the community (inactivity is mostly a sign of disillusionment, at least with the community, if not Baha'i belief), or the number of people clearly identifying themselves as believers is relevant to that. The number I'm really interested in, if it could be discovered, is how many people who are attracted enough to Baha'u'llah to sign a card have become alienated from the community -- whether they expressed this by going inactive, or resigning their membership. I did not accuse, in my article, anyone of deliberately inflating the figures -- although I personally believe this is happening. I explained that the practice of keeping anyone who signs a card on the rolls until they write a letter of resignation as a reason for the discrepancy between these numbers. In fact, I've known several people who sent in resignation letters without giving reasons, and they receive a response from Wilmette that discourages them from leaving over any issue other than lack of belief in Baha'u'llah. Other stories tell of sending a resignation letter to an LSA, which refuses to pass it on. It's not all that easy, sometimes, to get off the rolls, even if you do bother to write a letter. I have never advocated throwing folks off the rolls because they don't show up to Feast, just so the numbers can be accurate. (As you ought to know, I'm not a big fan of throwing *anyone* off the rolls.) Disillusionment is a hard thing to measure, but there are several figures that would be relevant, if adequate research could be done on all of them. 1. The number of people recorded on the rolls at Wilmette. 2. The number of those enrolled who are inactive.(Defined as a minimum of one year of no contact with the community.) 3. The number of those enrolled who are "mail returns". 4. The number of people who identify themselves as Baha'i, most of whom would be on the rolls, but some would not be. Likewise, there are those still on the rolls who have drifted away and no longer identify with the Baha'i Faith, but haven't bothered to send in a letter of resignation. It is this self-identification that the Kosmin poll is aiming at. Now, Wilmette has consistently said that about half of those on the rolls are "mail return". That's their own statistic, and it's one that is a strong indicator of disillusionment with the Baha'i community. Of course, one can always find stories of exceptions, but I think it's really stretching it to assume that thousands of people aren't getting their American Baha'i because of bureaucratic snafus and to keep asserting that most people who have had no contact with the community for years on end are still identifying themselves as Baha'is. In addition, there are inactive Baha'is who still get their American Baha'i, and aren't "mail return" -- I've heard it said that this number may be as high as one-half of the "good addresses", but I can't be sure. Some of these folks, too, very probably don't identify themselves with the Faith any more. And even if they *do* privately consider themselves as Baha'is, the lack of contact with the community indicates that the community isn't giving these people anything they value -- if it was, they'd be there. I don't believe that all of them are inactive just because they are working swing shift and can't get to meetings. So, if you take the 140,000 figure, that's about 70,000 getting their American Baha'i, and an even lower number who are active in the community. Maybe I'm crazy, but that says "disillusionment" to me -- at least with the community, if not with Baha'u'llah. Karen -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3cfcb37f@212.67.96.135... > > Pat Kohli wrote in message > news:3CFC3D45.7DB9820F@ameritel.net... > > > > > > Paul Hammond wrote: > > > > > Pat Kohli wrote in message > > > news:3CF822F2.66A116E3@ameritel.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It therefore is not necessary to posit actual increases of > converts > > > > > > > over deaths and withdrawals in the past decade, which I do not > > > believe > > > > > > > could be demonstrated. > > > > > > > > > > > > I should hope no one sould seriously suggest that the number of > adult > > > > > > Baha'is in the US has tripled in the 1990s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one has yet done so, Pat. > > > > > > > > Right, Paul. > > > > > > > > > > Is this a sarcastic "right"? > > > > No; it is the same 'not so' it has been from me; the number of adult > Baha'i in > > the US has not tripled in the nineties. I point that out to suggest that > the > > 1990 poll had a problem, and that is what Juan seems to now agree to. If > both > > of the Kosmin polls were valid, the implication would be that he number > tripled > > in the 1990s. > > > > > No one has yet done so, and I don't > > > see anyone being likely too - so why do you need to guard > > > against this negligible possibility? > > > > > > > It implies the problem in the 1990 poll, a problem which now seems to be > > conceded by Juan, a problem which was openly suggested by the US NSA back > when > > the Kosmin study was released. > > > > > > > > In fact, I've seen a long para or two from Juan where he > > > was speculating as to the reasons why the original survey > > > could have got such a low number. > > > > Please do show me what Juan thinks is the reason for the low count. If > he were > > arguing his pet theory for how the numbers were skewed in the "Panopticon" > > article, that might imply he thought they were too low. > > > > > None of them anything > > > like your very own "Baha'i=bu-bye" theory, which we already > > > know my opinion of. > > > > > > > Do show the reasons which Juan argued for the low count. Please select > the text > > you are interested in, then use the "Edit" menu and the "Copy" command, > put your > > cursor into the message window and paste it between two quotation marks. > Don't > > accuse me of sarcasm; your quoting is just lousy, and I'd really like to > help. > > > > Why should I need to accuse you of sarcasm? It leaps out from > your words without any pointers from me. > > Here, google boy - two paragraphs from a post dated 29th May > from earlier in this thread, at > https://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3390914586d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=619f14 > 52.0205290616.ad4ad6b%40posting.google.com&rnum=27 > > "It would be very interesting to know exactly what methodological or > other changes accounted for the increased numbers. One possibility is > that the estimated 12,000-15,000 (some say over 20,000) > Iranian-American Baha'is cooperated with the poll this time, now being > either second generation or 20-year veterans of living in the States. > Another possibility is that the 10,000 or so African-American > Baha'i/Baptists in the South now have a stronger Baha'i identity. You > could pick up 25,000-30,000 just with these two groups having a change > of consciousness and/or willingness to answer telephone polls. > > It therefore is not necessary to posit actual increases of converts > over deaths and withdrawals in the past decade, which I do not believe > could be demonstrated. I can remember years in the '90s when even > Wilmette admitted that it was a wash. (Many Baha'is focus only on > conversions, not withdrawals or deaths, as though the latter don't > have to be factored in)." > > What's up, Pat, is your recall *really* so poor? > > Or should I perhaps have said "I have seen a paragraph of > two _from this very thread_ from Juan", since it appears that > people who don't spell things out entirely have nefarious > purposes in your odd world? > > > > > > > > > You seem to have to insist on arguing that Juan and Karen > > > > > *both* have a case which rests on a survey which both of > > > > > them knew to have come up with a flawed figure from the > > > > > start, but they had to assume that the figure was correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My knowledge that the 1990 number was wrong was based on my attendance > at > > > an > > > > event and I have _no_knowledge_ that either Karen or Juan attended > that > > > same > > > > event and could have even possibly drawn the same inferences I did. > Let > > > me make > > > > that real plain for you, Paul. You've connected the wrong dots, start > > > over, > > > > BUT, thanks for spelling it out for me, this time, in a picture I > could > > > > visualize. > > > > > > Pat - why would Karen or Juan have had to have had the > > > same experience as you in order to be able to see _for themselves_ > > > _from the start_ and with *no* other information that the > > > 1990 Kosmin survey figure was an outlier? > > > > > > > What are you talking about? Are you saying that Juan saw the 1990 survey > as > > biased, or are you saying he did not? I cetainly don't project that he or > Karen > > saw problems with it! > > > > They both stated when they quoted it that the outlying 28,000 figure > seemed too low to them. It's only you who thinks that the > 1990 figure being totally reliable and accurate is the cornerstone > of their cases. > > > > > > > Certainly, it was the lowest estimate I've ever heard of the > > > US Baha'i population, which is probably the reason for its > > > fame. > > > > > > But, from my reading of Juan and Karen, both of them, from > > > the first, suspected this 28,000 figure was incorrect, and thus > > > inferred from it with care. > > > > > > > Paul > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: The Hidden Persuaders. Date: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:44 AM > > Whilst these initiatives have had a degree of success in currying > favour with "prominent people" they have achieved nothing in terms of > recruitment of new members. Being somewhat of a cynical bastard where > "prominent people" are concerned, I cannot but think that they mouth > favourable sentiments, as scripted for them, on behalf of the AO but > that, given one half decent scandal, will disengage from support and > adulation faster than a weasel devours its prey. Dear Dermod, You are absolutely right here. In addition to the simple fact that any politician or government official would hang the Faith out to dry if a scandal broke, there is the danger of getting involved with someone corrupt. In fact, I know a story where that happened. The chances of actually converting a prominent person is miniscule, especially since the first thing we'd ask a politician to do is give up his career. I remember hearing about the President of Guyana, who became a Baha'i, I think in the early 90s. I also heard that the AO was going to "help" him become disentangled from party politics.(I never heard what happened with that.) It's very odd -- individual Baha'is are prohibited from being involved with any kind of politics, even on issues that are dear to Baha'i hearts, like racism or human rights. But Baha'i administrators can politick and hobnob with the powerful all they want, and it's supposed to be this great thing for the Faith. Actually, it was religious leaders that Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha said should refrain from interfering in politics -- the whole thing has been turned on its head. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk the only thing that > will effectively and permanently contribute to the "prestige of the > Faith" is a constant ever increasing stream of new members. The > circumstances for that do not exist and will not exist save that there > be major changes, not only in the presentation of the BF but in the > reality of its community development to assimilate and integrate the > troops. Within the current leadership I doubt that the will to do > that exists. > > Dermod. > > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Daughter of Ross Campbell Date: Thursday, July 04, 2002 4:24 AM > > Either that, Martin, or it's a matter of guilt by association. > Children of so-called Covenant-breakers are to be shunned, just like > their parents, and it doesn't matter whether the individual has ever > made his or her declaration to the Faith within the organization under > the sans-Guardian UHJ. It might also be noted that the age of the > offspring apparently doesn't make any difference either --whether it's > a child who is five years old or fifty years old... > Yes, I think this is basically it. The only way a child of a covenant-breaker will not be shunned is if he or she becomes a Baha'i, and agrees to shun parents and any relatives that continue to associate with them. I think technically, non-Baha'i children of covenant-breakers are not considered CBs themselves, but are classed as "supporters of covenant-breakers". And it will go on down the generations, too -- children, grand-children, great-grandchildren, all will be shunned. I know John Carre's daughter, Carol, described her experience quite poignantly. These descendants are even spied on; it's really quite insane. What do they do? Keep birth and death records on all CB families, so they don't miss any descendants? I know with Carol, they knew where she was living and working. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: Reply to Brian Walker's post Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:32 PM > > > > I wonder if any of the other Baha'is, dissident Baha'is on this news group > > would be kind enought to put their biography up to read? Dear Brian, I've had George in the killfile, so I don't know the context of this, but I've alway been very open, sometimes probably too open, about who I am -- people can know just about anything they want about me, except my exact location -- and I suspect if a person were determined to find that out, they could. I'm 42, a substitute teacher, married with two kids, ages 13 and 10. Before I went back to school to get my teaching credential, I was a housewife. The story of my Baha'i life, my community, and why I left the Faith is on my website. (The link on my signature.) I never held office in the Baha'i Faith, except for being on the LSA in a community so small that everyone was on the LSA. I really am not very fearsome at all -- and about as ordinary as a person can get. If the Baha'i administration is at all threatened by me, then it really *is* in trouble. Is there anything more anyone wants to know? My family background? My astrological sign? My ethnic background? How you pronounce my last name? Anyway, I'm getting tired of cyberspace -- it's all just getting too stupid out here. Love, Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > You can google for my posts, but in essence I am a pioneer to Germany, > USSR and now Hong Kong, and I resent some upstart shite of an english > manor boy flouting all Baha'i decency and call my spiritual life less > perfect than his own. We are ALL imperfect - and at the moment you are > more imperfect than anyone here. Shame on you. > > Brian Walker > From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Further Explaination about elimination of consultation at Convention Date: Saturday, August 24, 2002 12:07 AM Dear friends, I'm posting this without commentary, waiting 'til you give yours. Love, Karen ************************** September 7, 2002 To the American Bahá'í Community for the Feast of Izzát Dear Bahá'í Friends, In the wet and numbing cold of the Síyáh Chál, His feet in stocks, His neck weighed down by galling chains, His nostrils assaulted by stench-filled air, sleep and rest were all but impossible. ". Still in those infrequent moments of slumber," Bahá'u'lláh Himself testifies, "I felt as if something flowed from the crown of My head over My breast, even as a mighty torrent that precipitateth upon the earth from the summit of a lofty mountain." These were the first stirrings of a Revelation that would be hailed as the "promise and crowning glory of past ages and centuries." A revelation that would birth an Administrative Order that is "fundamentally different from anything that any Prophet has previously established." A system for organizing and uniting the world in accordance with God's desire: "He Who is your Lord, the All-Merciful, cherisheth in His heart the desire of beholding the entire human race as one soul and one body." The sanctity and sacred character of Bahá'í elections assures the proper formation of those divine institutions established by Bahá'u'lláh. The Bahá'í electoral process is completely different from the election practices of all other political systems. "On election day," Shoghi Effendi explains, "the friends must whole-heartedly participate in the elections, in unity and amity, turning their hearts to God, detached from all things but Him, seeking His guidance and supplicating His aid and bounty." At a time when the electoral process of our nation is subject to widespread distrust, the National Spiritual Assembly has chosen to strengthen those distinctive spiritual characteristics of Bahá'í elections, beginning with the Unit Convention. The Universal House of Justice has given National Spiritual Assemblies a great deal of discretion in determining the details and procedures of Bahá'í elections. Your National Assembly has concluded that it is time for evolution of the format and procedure of the Unit Conventions. In the early days of our community, State Conventions served not only to elect delegates to the National Convention, but also as one of the few opportunities for the friends from different localities to meet and consult about the affairs of the Faith. To the American Bahá'í Community page 2 for the Feast of Izzát Today, forums for discussion of Bahá'í matters have multiplied in the growing number of Local Assemblies and the Nineteen Day Feasts, inter-community agencies, clusters and study circles, Bahá'í conferences and Internet communications. The National Assembly wishes to invite all Bahá'í children, youth and adults to attend the upcoming Unit Conventions and join us in a learning process aimed at exploring spiritual dimensions of the Bahá'í election process. Beginning this year the Unit Convention agenda includes three elements. First, devotions and the arts to assist children, youth and adults to "turn their hearts to God." Second is the sacred act of voting. Convention governance will require only the election of a chairperson. During the voting, many conventions will offer programs for children organized around the Core Curriculum material on the Bahá'í elections. Third, at the conclusion of the voting, all of the friends will be invited to a social gathering. Many of the customary features of Unit Conventions, such as messages from the institutions and unit consultation, will now be channeled through other forums. It is our hope that this approach will lift and train our spirits in the sacred disciplines of Bahá'í governance. As this is a new approach, we will be eager to learn about your experiences and to receive your recommendations, a summary of which will be published in the American Bahá'í . Our prayers for your happiness and well-being are never ending. Our dearest hope is that the love and spiritual distinction of the Bahá'í community may become a powerful force of attraction for all souls who are searching for spiritual truth. With loving Bahá'í greetings, NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES Robert C. Henderson Secretary-General ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: What's the rate of growth/apostasy for the bahai faith? Date: Friday, September 13, 2002 11:57 AM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Robin Peters wrote in message news:20020913101927.16922.00002423@mb-mt.aol.com... > >Most sensible ex-Baha'is just go ahead and get > >on with their lives. > > Well, if you were to say that on Unenrolled Baha'i, you'd be in for a very rude > shock. Many of the people you feel get on with their lives are actually people > who might have to deal with being disillusioned. Either they don't know where > to go, or they might be too proud to speak up, or they might be simply the sort > of people who do not talk about such matters because they don't want to. That's > their privilege if they wish to remain quiet; for those of us who wish to talk > about it, that's our privilege too, and we cannot be told to just go away. > That's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Dear Robin, When people say that those who have left the Faith should "just go away", they are belittling the whole experience that people have when they convert to a religion. People are left adrift when they become disillusioned -- Baha'is won't listen or believe your experience; non-Baha'is don't know what the hell you are talking about. Then, besides just the disorienting experience of losing your spiritual center, there are more personal aspects -- severed relationships and so on. I think those who fare worst are the ones who convert when they are young, plan their whole lives around being a Baha'i -- their education, who they marry, where they live -- and then get screwed over by the power structure. Those who fare best are the ones who move on to another spiritual home, but for those for whom the Baha'i Faith was *the* spiritual experience, they are left cynical, angry, and bitter. Besides, no matter what people think the fact is that the disenchanted don't "just go away". We're here to stay -- even if individuals move on, they will be replaced by others saying the same thing. Fundamentalists can sit around wishing all they like that the open discontent would disappear, but it's not going to. > > >Only a few like those on TRB seem to make a big deal > >about it and want the let the world know why they in all their importance > >left the Baha'i faith. > > For those of us who choose to talk about it, one motivation is to seek out > people like us. It is a part of the human condition to do so - it is itself a > neutral motivation, in the sense that it can motivate us to seek out the > emotional support of those just like us in a disaster (which is what we do), > and it can also motivate human beings to do very racist and otherwise unsavory > things. In and of itself, seeking out others just like us is a neutral > phenomenon, nothing to complain about by itself. That's really what I'm trying to do out here -- put people who have had this experience in touch with each other. I also, if possible, don't want people giving up on Baha'u'llah -- no matter what state the AO is in. The only way for me to get past the anger was to realize that the actions of the AO have nothing to do with Baha'u'llah and His truth. > > >In the big world ourside nobody cares a tosser. > > Which is precisely why we come to places like TRB, ARB and Unenrolled Baha'i. > It is in these places we can find the kindred spirits we so crave. It is just > unfortunate that you don't like the idea. Defenders of the administration can be pretty heartless, and tend to "blame the victim". So, let them be heartless and show the world what they are. I care, and I'll be there for people who have gone through this. I consider it the most important thing I do out here, even more important than exposing the sins of the AO and so on. Defenders of the administration *can't* care about the ones who leave, because then they'd have to be forced to admit that there is often good reason for them to leave. Love, Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: bahai - START HERE - NEWCOMERS - exercise unusual caution.... Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:10 PM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Robert Clifton wrote in message news:cca72aa8.0210151423.2ff9864d@posting.google.com... > Dear Newcomer, > Fred Glaysher wrote > > Newcomers to talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai > > might want to exercise unusual caution. It will require > > more than a passing glance at a few messages to begin > > to understand what is taking place here. > > What is going on here is that these three (or maybe more) are using > this board as thier personal platform to complain about how the > Universal House of Justice is treating them. They absolutely refuse to > answer any questions yet expect you to read their stuff and accept it > hook line and sinker. And there you have it. Actually, Robert, that isn't true. First, I have never complained about how the UHJ is "treating" me, and would dare you to find such a complaint among my many posts. I *have* complained about how it has treated others. Second, I used to answer questions a whole lot more often than I do now, because I got tired of going over the same old ground with every hostile person who happened to wander into my field of vision. If you have a question, ask. But if you're a snot to me, I've got better things to do with my leisure time. And third, I don't expect anyone to buy what I have to say "hook, line, and sinker". Look into these issues yourself and decide -- I would never ask anything more of anyone. If you think I'm full of it, then those are the breaks of any writer. Karen https://www.bacquet.tk > > Always with love, > Robert From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: What is True Friendship Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:14 PM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah Rabia1844 wrote in message news:20021022121803.28094.00000255@mb-fi.aol.com... > >That sounds like a challenge! I think you underestimate the number of > >people who read Glaysher, Cole and Bacquet. They are probably a part > >of the reason that Bahai is failing to recruit > > LOL. Not likely. The number of people who are investigate the Faith via the > internet is still quite microscopic, though it is growing. And Glaysher's > spamming discredit him and insures no one takes him seriously. The problem of lack of growth in the Baha'i Faith predates the rise of cyberspace by some time. In fact, from what I've picked up, some of the liberal frustration with the status quo was fueled by the inability of the Faith to keep up the momentum it had gained in the 70s. Truth be told, the expectations that the boom era created were probably somewhat unrealistic anyway. Reality set in, and some disillusionment was probably inevitable. Anyway, when it comes down to it, people aren't going to choose a religion based on what they see on the Internet -- personal contact and experience will have a whole lot more influence. And that goes for *any* religion, not just the Baha'i Faith. Where "Glaysher, Cole, and Bacquet" have an influence is on people who are already Baha'is, especially those who are experiencing some disquiet or dissatisfaction with what's going on in the community. Baha'is who are happy with things and living in thriving local communities tend to discount what we say. It doesn't jive with their experience. However, there are a lot of Baha'is out there for whom it all rings true. The other major impact is that Juan's articles in particular will have an influence on how the Faith is seen in non-Baha'i academic circles. He also rings true with Baha'is that have already had a liberal and intellectual bent to begin with. For such people it doesn't take a lot of persuasion to convince them that censorship is bad, or that it might be possible to have women on the House, or that Baha'u'llah doesn't teach theocracy. All that is needed is exposure to the idea, and the scriptural and contextual underpinning. Karen From: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: What is True Friendship Date: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:01 PM "> > But I doubt any article written by a Baha'i would even > > be allowed to allude to the presence of dissent, much less discuss in > > detail the House's response to it. And, as we've seen, the presence of > > fundamentalism is just denied. All they can do is present a picture > > of the Baha'i community that leaves these things out, in which case, > > the things that Juan has brought out in his articles can't be > > addressed. > > And brought out in your article, if you don't mind my saying so. Dear Fred, Thank you. I've got almost 1800 hits on that article now, no doubt partly in due to your kind and vigorous promotion of it. And, no, nobody still enrolled is going to draw attention to the events I wrote about, in any kind of counter-article. Online, mostly the argument either runs that the Institutions were justified, or the whole thing is just belittled ("Why fuss over a handful of people?"), or they tell me I don't know the whole story, but have nothing substantive to add to that story. The conservative academic crowd is ignoring my article entirely, with Susan being the only one to comment at all. But then, I probably don't rate much with the academic crowd. > > You're quite right on all counts. And, of course, as we who have > observed the fundamentalists now for years know, their most > common tactic is to attempt to discredit the individual, in one way > or another. I shan't recite the litany for the 10th million time! > Alas.... I feel the periodic outbursts of "vehement ignorance" > are another tactic, really, one perhaps clearly calculated to also > discredit and deceive.... Think about it for a while.... Let me > know if you don't agree. They're just too orchestrated to be > anything else.... Well, I'm always a bit skeptical of conspiracy theories -- a trait that sometimes gets me called "naive" by my friends. There's plenty of "vehement ignorance" around without it being orchestrated. If you're talking about this latest stuff with George, I think there is more going on than meets the eye, but I would hesitate to venture a guess on what it is. But I will agree with you that discrediting is a favored tactic. I'm just lucky I'm was unknown until coming to cyberspace -- nobody knows how to discredit me, because my style is relatively moderate, which makes me exempt from some of the accusations of mental instability or that I'm given to wild speculations. Muffinman on Beliefnet tried awfully hard though, if you noticed, although he mostly went after my identity as a Baha'i. All anybody else can do is focus on my being an amateur writer without academic qualifications, which is something I freely admit without fuss. Now, some things, like the virtual disappearance of a lot of old-time AO defenders, both here, and even more strikingly so at Talisman, may be as a result from a word from the top -- but that's just speculation on my part. However, I'll keep my eyes open and will think about what you've said. > > Nice fall day here. Just got a load of firewood. Looking forward to > cozy little fire tonight! Fall in California is a bit different from fall elsewhere. I'm still picking tomatoes from my garden, and it just has been cooling down this last week. We probably won't get frost for another few weeks yet. Love, KarenFrom: "Karen Bacquet" Subject: Re: How Many Baha'i Sects Are There? Date: Saturday, November 16, 2002 10:10 AM -- "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." -- Baha'u'llah David / Amicus wrote in message news:13752-3DD5F4A7-12@storefull-2133.public.lawson.webtv.net... > What are they? > Thanks! Dear David, There have actually been, in Baha'i history, a lot of Baha'i sects, although most are no longer in existence, or extremely tiny. In this cyberspace era, if you're not big enough to have a website, you're probably pretty insignificant! Anyway, the only sects I know of that are still around are the Remeyite sects. Largest is the Orthodox Baha'i, who claim that Joel Marangella is the third Guardian. Estimates of their numbers range from 1000-8000 worldwide. Then you have Baha'is Under Provisions of the Covenant, which doesn't have a Guardian, but followed Leland Jensen until he died some years back. This was kind of a bizarre group, very focused on Biblical prophecy and apocalyptic doom. It seemed just as much a fringe Christian group as a fringe Baha'i group. Susan once dug up information that David Koresh was actually a member of the sect for a brief period before becoming a Branch Davidian. IMO, BUPC was definitely the weirdest of the splinter groups. From what I've heard the group has been pretty much falling apart since Jensen's death, although it still has several websites out there. Next is the "Orthodox Baha'is Under the Regency", who followed Rex King. He eventually rejected Remey's claim, and claimed to be a "Regent" pending the appearance of the next Guardian. From what I hear, like BUPC, it had some success attracting Christians. But since King's death, the group dwindled. It is now in the hands of a "Council of Regents" which consist of King's family members, and the impression I get, the community doesn't have much of anybody else. I've never met a Regency Baha'i online. (Like most Baha'is, I never met any Remeyites at all until coming online.) They do have a website, in which they give the impression of being substantially less weird than the other groups. Finally, there are the Baha'is who claim that Jacques Soghomonian is the fourth Guardian. They've been known by several names, and the one I met online seemed stubbornly resistant to any name but simply "Baha'i", or sometimes "Baha'is under the living Guardianship" -- although they didn't seem to have a formal name for the group. But I got complaints for using the term "Remeyite" or "Soghomonian's followers", and finally evolved the politically-correct term "Guardianist" -- which, believe me, is further than most mainstream Baha'is would go in accomodating a person belonging to one of these groups. (He was a Beliefnet host, so I had to work with him on occasion.) From what I hear, this group has about 80 people, and I'd never heard of it before running into its chief promoter, Brent Reed. It doesn't even seem to have a website, although Brent has an email list, and managed to get Beliefnet boards created for it. As for groups that were formed earlier in Baha'i history, I have not seen any sure evidence that they still exist, although they might, but are certainly quite small. The main types of these earlier groups were those who opposed Shoghi Effendi's emphasis on administration, and descendents of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha who opposed the Covenant. The latter still exists, but they blend in with the Muslim population and stay to themselves, with the religion just passed down through the family. Love, Karen >