From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:27 PM Greetings, Rick. Well, here's one where the ad hominem is followed by the expression of personal opinion. I do hope, monsieur, that you agree it's your own viewpoint, your thought, your opinion that is being expressed. It's a bit, how do we say, discouraging of the Baha' attitude of open mindedness to read your references to others having no more knowledge now, or of not answering your questions "correctly". Your opinions are valid, as your opinions, but the views of others are equally valid, and what is incorrect is any effort to squelch others' views, such as by trying to crackdown on the Internet, by defining people as non-Baha'is, etc. Merci, Monsieur, for stating that there are imperfections in the way those holding power in Baha'i have been and are doing things. We are very much in agreement on that point. The principle flaw in Baha'i, in my opinion, is the notion, the idealogical idol, to use Abdu'l Baha's concept (He's the guy who said that at least if you pray to a stone, the stone has existence, as a stone, but when you worship something in your mind, that has no concrete reality) that there's perfection in Baha'i administration. This has reached the level that President Bush has the capacity and authority to admit he was wrong on something anytime he likes, but the guys running the Baha'i show have to pretend they're better than the Wizard of Oz. I like the answer the Wizard of Oz gave, "Oh, no; I'm not a bad man, just a bad wizard." The Baha'i Faith contains the perspective that there is no positive evil, that there is a deficiency of good, just as poverty means not that there is something, but rather a lack of something, money. So, the guys in charge, the men at the top, being, as is quite common in organizations, not easy in handling change, not eager to hand over power to successors, not enthusiastic with allowing the led to perceive them as all too human, (Oh, I know that any man on the UHJ is just a man, but the mental idol is that when all nine human males decree something, it's not human), have compounded their imperfect leadership, by taking actions that contradict the raison d'etre of the organization they head. In my opinion, anyone truly serious about exploring imperfection and it's remedy will eagerly explore this issue of the idol of perfect leadership at the top. It has been posted here that the quote which has been rendered in English "Infallible" means something like, "Pure", and also, the concept has been posted here that there are admonitions to leaders in such expressions as "Wellspring of Guidance" and "Source of All Good", that is, "Endeavour to rule, as if you were, strive to be, have as your goal," etc. Bien, Monsieur, do you agree that one major step in acknowledging this problem and in seeking to remedy it is for Baha'is, especially the guys at the top to admit to themselves and openly that imperfection, even mistakes came from the top and now is as good a time as any to act so as to rectify the consequences of these, not evil, so much as impoverished previous decisions. I await with keen interest your response. Au Revoir, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Curious" wrote in message > news:3c3ac2dc@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> Leads him to conclude that it is perfect, can do no wrong, requires no >> reform and is under attack by miscreants who seek no more than >> division and strife. > > Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too. > > For those who've only recently come to these newsgroups, I have the distinct > honor of being the very first Baha'i Rod ever insulted, and Rod has the > distinct honor of being the first Baha'i to respond with insults to a > question I had asked in all sincerity. To be perfectly honest, I don't know > if Rod has ever given a straighforward answer to that question. Much of > what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with > personal invectives. > > And, for the record, no. I do not believe the Baha'i Administrative Order > is perfect in every way, that it can do no wrong nor that it requires no > reform. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I have been quite > willing to entertain reform from those who have demonstrated sufficient > knowledge of the issues about which they propose reform. > > So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple > question regarding who the "accusor" is in the due process right to face > one's accusor. While you've made several rather obnoxious attempts to > answer that question, you still haven't answered it correctly. Can you put > personalities aside long enough to actually discuss the meaning of the terms > you've used? That certainly would be the most Baha'i thing to do. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:18 AM Greetings, Susan. > Shoghi Effendi's statement that he was relegating to himself the right to > declare people Covenant breakers was time-bound to begin with. Another response to this situation is to view the world in such a way that there are no Covenant Breakers, to cease the policy of viewing the world as inhabited by us and them, we the good and they the evil, and to consort with the followers of all religions, including other Baha'is, in a spirit of amity and fellowship and to demonstrate the harmony of humanity. By the way, Susan, if you've failed to find any poems I posted to Baha'i cyberspace, one thing you're more likely to have and which I would also like to have is any and all responses I've made to communications fromthe UHJ, other than that specifically dealing with my case. I seem to recall that I replied to the letter on Individual Rights and Freedoms as well as the letter on homosexuality, and there may be others. If you or anyone else can supply me with these, I'd be very grateful. Thrive, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. You may do a web search for "michael mckenny" and "brehon law" to see that I have considered legal systems. Somewhere out there is the site where my review of Fergus Kelly's A GUIDE TO EARLY IRISH LAW is rated Five Star and "Excellent". This is not the system of law I advocate as superior to the existing (Old World Order) one. However, I have considered the point you mention. In a way, the Old World Order system we're used to in Perry Mason, if nowhere else, is based on a combination of things such as the Justinian code, the evolution of the Anglo Saxon and Norman and Biblical ideas, etc. It's not perfect, but I'll take the Magna Carta and trial by jury any day over the nine kings in Haifa can do anything at they please, with no consideration of individual rights and freedoms at all, with no restraints, with no trial, with no jury, with no need to produce evidence, without even allowing someone to know that even a kangaroo court is being held. On a dispassionate basis, purely on the issues and devoid of all reference to personality, which is preferable, the flawed Old World Order system of justice, imperfect as it is, or the non-existence of any system at all within the current Baha'i Faith, where leadership simply decrees and defines what is right and what is wrong and there is no due process at all. By all means, take the admirable features of Justinian and Cicero, of the pagan Celts, of the bible, of Islamic jurisprudence, of Napoleon, of ancient China, not to forget Baha'u'llah (who said the best thing was justice -- and this is not a word meaning the decrees of the guys in charge -- of anyone else you like, and allow a full and democratic input, and what you have, flawed as it is will likely do a lot more to bring justice and harmony than the lack of due process currently inflicting such serious harm on the Baha'i Faith. To the Future, Michael > > I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to > illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't > discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any > thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to > incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of administering > justice into a single, coherent system. > ... > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. In what way does "Discernment" go beyond "Merely thinking for yourself". Do you mean that there are sub-categories of "Dictated" that you approve? Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are wrong. Have you that capacity of discernment? Can you admit that there may be dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are in conflict with ethics to the point that these dictates cannot be obeyed? I await an honest answer very attentively. To the Future, Michael > > Seeing, Michael, has to do with the quality of discernment. It goes beyond > merely thinking for oneself. > > As for how this might related to the thinking and acceptance of "dictated > thoughts," well, that depends on precisely what you mean in your use of the > word "dictated". > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. Many thanks for your kind words. Actually, the web page on geocities is still under construction, and I was aiming at formally announcing it on Imbolc (February 2nd). It's mainly focused on topics of special interest to me, and Baha'i is a small part of that, as anyone who checks it out will see. Also, the Baha'i material is deficient; it's missing my responses to at least two, probably more, letters of the UHJ, and it's missing the links I want to put in to other Baha'i sites of interest. If I don't have a link to your site by February 2nd, don't hesitate to give me a gentle reminder. I think it is truly great to be providing the service you are of helping those wronged within Baha'i. I tend to be too preoccupied with other things to be able to contribute much to e-lists. And, I feel that what time I can spend in Baha'i cyberspace is most constructively spent here, in the open, where so many have been so unjustly made fearful to be seen. However, feel free anytime to share any comments I post here with any one. Thrive Ever, Michael "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: >> So, I guess I've got some time to check out >> what Rick posts. I've always maintained personality is irrelevant; it's >> content that's valid. >> I'd like to thank you for your presence and role here.<< > > Dear Michael, > > I don't believe I've ever been so gently and charmingly corrected. I think > you're an absolute darling, and I'll check out your website soon -- I've > been busy with some writing of my own, which I'll tell everybody about soon. > > Love, Karen > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Such "Parochialism", if it is the parochialism that stems from the Magna Carta, the jury system, British common law, etc., for all its warts, blemishes and imperfections is much to be preferred to that Non-Parochialism" which needs no trials, no juries, no presentation of evidence, no opportunity for defence at all, simply the decree by the men running the show that such a penalty has been rendered, and indeed the penalty may even be decreed without notification. Here's to Parochialiam. Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Randy Burns" wrote in message > news:kBM_7.379$gt2.110120@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> It ain't Justice till its Justice! > > Except when "Justice" is nothing more than a culturally determined notion of > "justice". Then it's not justice at all. It's just parochialism. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. By all means, I very much invite you to restate your words, if I get them wrong. In my opinion, you have pontificated, which is fine, when it is pointed out. You speak as if your point of view is the only one and, of course, you mean, in your opinion, in your view, you think that the mistakes made by the nine guys running the show and the idol that these nine guys can do no wrong is not an issue. Perhaps it is not an issue for you. However, to return to an accurate quote, "The substance of controversy," unless you actually agree that the nine guys running the show have made mistakes and that the requirement now within Baha'i is to follow the advice of Abdu'l Baha and overcome the idol worship of the concept of the perfection of the decrees emanating from the nine men in charge -- "The substance of controversy" very much is that there are those within Baha'i worshipping this idol and the nine men in charge are not seen as having the authority to admit honestly their imperfect and incorrect decrees, a preliminary step to rectifying the mess into which their very much fallible leadership has resulted in. If you agree and all others agree, then let this admission and this correction of past impoverished decrees begin. If, as I suspect, you do not agree with me, then this very much is, "The substance of controversy." To facing facts, admitting truth, following the advice of Abdu'l Baha and the harmonious consultation on and resolution of all thorny and difficult issues. The human being has been endowed with a very remarkable capacity to overcome obstacles, figure out solutions to problems, solve complex issues, on the condition that effort to do so is undertaken, and honest and sincere facing up to issues, consulting on such problems with an open and unbiased mind and heart, listening to others very deeply takes place. May you and all within Baha'i, especially those who hold positions of responsibility honestly, sincerely, prayerfully open your minds and your hearts and really observe the situation as it exists, really assess what is going on, really listen to the diverse rainbow of opinions that can be embraced by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, really consult on the substance of controversy, really listen to all viewpoints, really reach for answers, resolutions, decisions that address the real issues, and really promote the world embracing, world encompassing, world harmonizing potential of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1flt5$91v$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> This thread's appropriately titled enough. You said you wanted to >> converse politely about issues. > > Again, Michael, you misqute me. I was keen on discussing the issues that > are actually the substance of controversy. I'm not at all keen on repeating > a discussion you and I have already had way too many times before without > any hope of increased understanding and/or mutual admiration or agreement. > Where you and I are concerned, perhaps the only polite thing for us to do is > agree to disagree. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I will try to reply to your questions and I invite you to be very specific in expressing your opinion and to underline wherever you feel I have failed to state my opinion on an issue. I may do the same. You have invited a polite exchange of views. I have repeatedly said that any and all remarks directed at the person are irrelevant, and any and all comments I direct at you rather than your points are equally irrelevant. In my opinion, it doesn't cut water to maintain that dictatorships can keep information secret and then say our dictatorship cannot be assessed because you lack information. Release all the information and demonstrate why obvious injustice isn't injustice, due to specific and exceptional circumstances or be assessed as any other dictatorship. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1fnog$bsj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> You are correct, in my opinion, that not the accusor, necessarily, >> but the accusation and all its details are deserving of being seen by >> any accused. > > I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to > illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't > discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any > thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to > incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of administering > justice into a single, coherent system. > >> Within a Baha'i context, one very serious problem is that some >> folks are being accused of expressing opinions not in favour among the >> hierarchy. That is a serious injustice. > > Actually, with in the Baha'i context, a far more serious problem is people > accusing the Universal House of Justice of perpetrating injustices not based > upon a review of all the relevant facts but based upon their own inability > to imagine alternative, yet equally reasonable, explanations for those facts > that are known. When we know that we don't know all the relevant facts, > then the only just thing to do is to refrain from voicing a judgement. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Whatever it is, obedience to dictates by nine men in heaven doesn't make one ethical, as is demonstrated by the shoddy treatment these nine men have rendered Baha'i. Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes: > Michael, > > What is the standard to judge what is ethical and what is not? > > Cheers, > > Dave -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. The Universal House of Justice has full authority to legislate, as it perceives the needs of the time. It is one of the fundamental principles of legislating that Parliament may not bind its successor. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Randy Burns" wrote in message > news:oxM_7.376$gt2.109276@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> Are statements of the House of Justice binding on future UHJ's? > > When I wrote: > > "To go beyond this point is to enter the realm of speculation. In other > words, whether or not the Universal House of Justice might revise a > pronouncement on a question that's obscure is, itself, a question that's > obscure. I'd suggest that those who really care about the matter should > write the Universal House of Justice." > > I thought I was answering precisely that question. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:14 PM Greetings, Rick. Many thanks for your frank and honest reply. In your opinion, at this time, you think that it is possible for you to come to the conclusion that the decrees from the nine men at the top could be seen as so unethical that obedience could not be rendered. You further, it seems to me, very strongly hold the view that ethically you would then be bound to declare yourself a non-Baha'i. That is, in my view, one very valid viewpoint. It is not the only viewpoint possible. As on many issues, humans were not created as clones; there is a rainbow of perception possible, and, on this issue it is conceivable that an individual could conclude that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah consists in more than merely obeying any decree so ever that comes from the nine guys in charge. Were you yourself to express this opinion some time in the future, I would not say anything against you. As Baha'u'llah said, human opinions are varied and even the same individual will modify his views and change his mind over the course of time. What is contrary to my understanding of the Revelation of Baha'i is to accuse others of hypocrisy for holding a viewpoint at variance to your own. In my opinion, the Faith Baha'u'llah intended to harmonize the human species calls on individuals to focus on personal spiritual development, to plow one's own line as straightly as one kind without calling others names. In my opinion, the Baha'i Faith may be perceived in a rainbow of varied ways, but, personally, I believe it was meant to be more than a group of people obeying anything at all that may be decreed from HQ. I applaud all those who have the spiritual fortitude to live a life that is based on spiritual principles transcending decrees to ignore or repudiate such spiritual principles. I think there are a vast number of understandings believers may have and still very much be believers. I applaud your forthright statement of your opinion today concerning your right to call yourself a Baha'i. I will not say a word against you, if in the course of time you change your mind. I certainly do not say a word against, or criticize anyone who has not made your so emphatic statement, and may have another understanding. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > >> Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times >> when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are >> wrong. > > Absolutely. And, whenever such time as that might happen, I will cease to > call myself a Baha'i. To do otherwise is to be a manifestation of > hypocrisy. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: excommunication Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:48 PM Rick, Zamyatin wrote a letter to Stalin saying he'd like to leave the Soviet Union and return when writers didn't have to please little men. Stalin let him go. Zamyatin lived in France. The Soviet Union was an objectionable place not because Zamyatin was allowed to live in France, nor because other Soviets were not allowed to live in France. It was an objectionable place, among other things, because those in charge abused their authority within the country, opposed freedom of speech within the country, got involved with permitted scientific research within the country, did not permit openness within the country, and used the tools at their disposal to perpetuate their domination within the country, whatever consequences this had for those residing within the country. So, if the Universal House has no other difference to present to its treatment of those within the Baha'i Faith, except that it encourages more people to follow Zamyatin's response to Stalin and move out, if within Baha'i there is the same abuse of leadership within the religion, identical opposition to the freedom of thought and expression, to independent uncensored academic research, to openness, the same use of the tools at its disposal (sending Counsellors out to notify communities of believers that those among them daring to protest injustice are "The Calamity" may not be the same thing as putting said people in mental asylums, but then the tools at their disposal are not yet up to Stalin's. What, pray tell, my wife said I should ask, is to happen to people in the expected world domination by Baha'is. When the whole world is under the control of the Universal House of Justice, will those wanting human rights still have the freedom to move, to some other planet? And, I wonder, if the current guys in the Universal House of Justice had the same tools as Stalin had, why should they be expected to act differently?). Yes, Rick, I consider any answer mentioning freedom to leave as a very bad sign of the state of Baha'i. this is intensified when it's remembered that ideally Baha'i was intended to bring harmony, among many other outstsnding things. If the rot at the top extends to urging and forcing people to move away, it is quite serious. To the future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1nq94$lk0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Do you honestly not perceive how bad it sounds when say that the >> distinction between the Baha'i Faith and the Soviet Union was that in >> Baha'i you're allowed to leave? > > Given that freedom is precisely the difference between the two, no. How bad > does it "sound" Michael? Is freedom simply not that important any more? > > Do you honestly not perceive how ridiculous it seems when people equate > returning your membership card with putting you in a mental hospital? Is > this how you justify hyperbole? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Hi, Susan. Is this the letter where they said Michael had deficient understanding and seemed uninterested in being instructed? To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>I hate to say this Susan, but the UHJ's letter to Michael is reminiscent of >>"Soviet Psychiatry's" attempt to define people who opposed communism as >>"social deviants" or worse. > > I don't see them saying anything about Michael even remotely similiar to this. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Do you honestly not perceive how bad it sounds when say that the distinction between the Baha'i Faith and the Soviet Union was that in Baha'i you're allowed to leave? To a Better Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Randy Burns" wrote in message > news:arG%7.89$VD1.78373@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> I hate to say this Susan, but the UHJ's letter to Michael is reminiscent > of >> "Soviet Psychiatry's" attempt to define people who opposed communism as >> "social deviants" or worse. The basic idea being that opposing the Soviet >> dictatorship was nothing more than a mental illness. > > So where did these attemps ever say anything like, "One is entirely free to > reject the system of Soviet Socialism. Soviet Socialism is a system of > governance which believes ardently in the freedom of socialistic choice. No > one is--or can ever be--compelled to be a Soviet Socialist." > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Have you ever read Zamyatin's WE. Zamyatin was an old Bolshevik imprisoned in Tsarist times, but when the early 20s came along he wrote this amazing novel (I have a copy of the first edition published in the XUSSR -- in 1989 (sic!), about the perfect society the hero is inhabiting. The greatest disaster is when on Unanimity Day, when all are supposed to publically acclaim the Benefactor and sit in sacred silence when, "Any opposed?" is asked, some people actually do say they oppose the Benefactor. However, newspapers next day carry the reassuring news that since one would have to be insane to say no to the re-acclaimation of the Benefactor, he was indeed re-acclaimed by all sane citizens. This book was available in the West during the Cold War (I like the translation by Mirra Ginsberg best). Indeed, having read such works as this and also the Mediaeval tale below, made me quite aware of the category of people with whom the men currently in charge of Baha'i were aligned. A Mediaeval Story: Once upon a time there was this Jewish guy who travelled to Rome and when he returned to his home town he promptly converted and became a Christian. The locals smiled and said, of course, the spirituality he witnessed in Rome could leave him no alternative. He replied, "Oh no. You wouldn't believe what I saw in Rome. those at the top were doing everything in their power to ruin Christianity, and, yet, despite them, I see Christianity flourishing. I could only conclude God was favouring it." To the Future, Michael "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > I hate to say this Susan, but the UHJ's letter to Michael is reminiscent of > "Soviet Psychiatry's" attempt to define people who opposed communism as > "social deviants" or worse. The basic idea being that opposing the Soviet > dictatorship was nothing more than a mental illness. > > Cheers, Randy > > > > -- > > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020111013028.25477.00001211@mb-fc.aol.com... > SNIP > > >> "The mission that has been laid by Baha'u'llah on those >> who recognize and would follow Him is the promotion of the >> unification of the earth's peoples in one global society guided by >> Divine principle. In order for the Baha'i community to discharge >> this responsibility, it must itself remain united. It must >> demonstrate to a skeptical age that human beings, in all their >> diversity, can learn to live and work as a single people in one >> global homeland. >> >> "The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the unity >> of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the Covenant >> which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings make it >> indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings thus set >> forth cannot be separated from the institutional means their Author >> has provided for their promotion. Particularly is this true of the >> interpretive functions with which the Guardianship has been endowed >> and the ultimate decision-making power invested in the Universal >> House of Justice, both of which are assured of unfailing Divine >> guidance. >> >> One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of belief >> Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion which believes >> ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one is -- or can ever >> be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to >> one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot >> continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What >> one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the >> unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional >> authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to >> have accepted." >> >> To put in a single word, the key issue here was the Covenant. Now the >> consequence to opposing the Covenant is, as you well know, being declared > a >> Covenant breaker. But in the cases of those who were removed from the > rolls, >> the determination of the House of Justice was, as they put it in regards > to >> Michael, >> " the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he >> neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor has > any >> real desire to do so." >> >> As such he could neither be expected to abide by the provisions of the >> Covenant, nor punished for failing to do so. >> >> >I just have a hard time accepting the >> >idea that Baha'u'llah would create such a powerful Institution yet >> >leave the individual believers so powerless. >> >> Perhaps we are not as powerless as you imagine. But we are a religion, not >> simply members of a social or political movement. As such we attempt to > respond >> to the revelation given by God, not make God in our own image. >> >> 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 >> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. No one challenged the authority of the Universal House of Justice. No one held an election to which women could be voted on the Universal House of Justice. Everyone stated that women would be elected to the Universal House of Justice when the proper authority, the Universal House of Justice, so legislated. There was no challenge to the authority of the Universal House of Justice. What was opposed was essential spiritual Baha'i principle, and this opposition came from the men currently in power violating Baha'u'llah's command that there be freedom of thought and expression within Baha'i. This astounding letter, in which the UHJ at last provided some at least of its reasoning has been very convincingly rebutted by Juan among others. It is an outrageous thing that the current administration utilized its mandate of authority as an instrument to divide the graet spiritual movement of Baha'u'llah. If President Bush were to rule that only the Republican viewpoint may be expressed in the US, if he were to seek to drive out of the USA any articulate democrat he could not silence, if he were to legislate the non-American status of convincing democrats who refused to be silent and did not succumb to pressures to move, he, not the democrats would be the source of any reduction in the prestige of the presidency, and of any division within America. Personality is invalid. If it would so for President Bush, it is so for the men currently in power in Baha'i. And, now this moment has passed. I believe I'm off at least until the afternoon. Have Fun. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The UHJ has declared people >>"not Baha'i" for disobedience......where is the balance on the other >>side? > > No, Milissa, not disobedience. Listen carefully to what the House is saying. > Again quoting from its letter to Michael's wife: > > "What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the unity of > the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional authority that is an > integral part of the Faith one professes to > have accepted." > > Disobeying an Institution may cause you to loose your voting rights. But > challenging its institutional authority is challenging the Covenant. Had the > House of Justice determined that these people were in fact Baha'is they would > have had no choice but to declare them Covenant breakers. > >>The UHJ stated in a previous letter that there were no set >>procedures in place (ie no due process) for these kinds of issues. > > "These kinds of issues" is a little to broad, Milissa. What the House has said > is that in cases where a Baha'i is accused of violating a Baha'i law each > community should decide what proceedures are most appropriate. But this kind of > thing is decided only by the House. To my knowledge they have never said there > was no set proceedure in place. > >>When I ask Baha'is in person, all I get are these vague and general >>quotes about the UHJ being free from all error and quotes about how >>the AO is suppose to be nice to the individual believers. > > Perhaps it is the House of Justice you need to ask regarding its own > proceedures. I think you will find they are more consistent than you imagine. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Many thanks for your response. You have stated a valid personal opinion. Now, my own take on the matter is that we're all human beings here, so all one has to do is try to obey the legislation of Baha'i institutions, including the UHJ. When it comes to quite obvious, for me and for some others, complete opposition to fundamental spiritual principle, then anyone, in my opinion, is fully valid, in holding the view that spiritual principle more defines Baha'i than the dictates, the decrees, the legislation, the orders, what have you, of the UHJ, and anyone not choosing to resign nor to obey where obedience would, to her or him, be perceived as hypocrisy and un-Baha'i, is completely coherent in her or his perception that s/he is a Baha'i. To the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1l5u0$fiq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Actually, I understand your response to the subsequent paragraph >> in my original letter, where you stated you could conceive of the UHJ >> dictating something you'd consider unethical, but then you'd have to >> resign as answering this. > > I'm still not sure I fully understand. Do you mean "dictate" being > something that I'd have to obey, or do you mean "dictate" being an assertion > of a truth to which I'd have to give my conscientious assent? > > It's my understanding that I'm obligated to obey what the Universal House of > Justice commands me to do, and should I find myself unable to > conscientiously obey such a command then I'd have to resign from the Faith. > ... > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) You cut my answer Baha'u'llah out of your reply. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1noqg$jjp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> What to you, Rick, is a >> Baha'i? This is not a trick question. > > It may not be a trick question, but it certainly seems like it's a way for > you to avoid answering mine. So, to be fair, I'll answer your question > right after you answer mine: > >> "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: >> > Slow down. Where do these "spiritual principles" come from? Who, or > what, >> > defined them? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I'm all ears, eyes, etc. What is then the distinction between the practises within Baha'i that we call injustice when we encounter them in the second or third world or, indeed first world, too? I know that my ogham fews (traditional Irish pieces of wood used for divinations) are available only a few feet from this computer, but I suspect that's not what you mean. Well, then, out with it. If it's available, what is it? To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ncto$2bl$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> There's an old quote that justice must not only be done, it must be >> seen to be done. It's invalid to perpetrate what looks, smells, tastes, >> sounds and feels like injustice, and to claim it isn't on the basis of >> concealed knowledge. > > When did I talk about "concealed" knowledge? I talked about people reaching > conclusions when they didn't have sufficient information. I mentioned > nothing about the availability of that information. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I said "so outrageously". It's a question of balance and moderation. It is not acceptable that any command whatsoever be issued, and all principle, other than the principle of obedience, be eliminated. We are not consulting about a hypothetical capacity of authority to legislate and be obeyed, even though one feels strongly about an issue, for example, as I already mentioned, that some people think it is terrible Canada is doing so little in Afghanistan and some people think it is terrible we are there at all. "So outrageously" means that the defining characteristics of the Baha'i religion: "Independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, welcoming a variety of humanly valid opinions, balance of all things, particularly science and religion, faith and reason, equality of women and men, etc., including justice." are being opposed by those asserting obedience is the only thing. You do agree, Susan, that there is a significant and wide range of very serious conscience issues here, not merely a circumstance where some people feel inclined one way and some people feel inclined the other? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> if, indeed, they >>didn't seek so outrageously to rule contrary to conscience, then there >>would be a very reduced number of occasions calling on conscience against >>the dictates of leadership. > > Dear Micheal, > > They will always rule contrary to someone conscience because consciences don't > agree. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Our newspapers have not reported any revolt either by those saying it's terrible we're in Afghanistan or by those saying it's terrible we have so few troops in Afghanistan. Methinks claiming those saying the Universal House of Justice will decide when women will sit on the Universal House of Justice have raised a standard of revolt and sending Counsellors around to tell communities that those writing letters of protest are the Calamity is a tad on the excessive side of Baha'u'llah's statement that whatsoever transcends the bounds of moderation causes harm. Would you agree? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>And when the UHJ invents new "non-punishments" for summarily >>dismissing those who ask questions in the wrong tone, or post >>their personal, Baha'u'llah centred opinions too widely, they make >>the Baha'i Faith a create-it-yourself religion, too. > > Dear Paul, > > The House of Justice does not do anything to anyone who asks them questions. As > to the extent to which they can promulgate opinions in direct opposition to the > Universal House of Justice, it was 'Abdu'l-Baha, not the House which pronounced > on this: > > "Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have > broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá'u'lláh) advance a > pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of > false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion > or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the > Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto > whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error. " > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. There's a similar thing in one of L. Sprague de Camp's stories. It goes, from memory, like this: The hero is visiting this despot who says to him, "When you leave here, close the gate; I don't want my animals to get out." "Fine, by the way, I've come looking for my fellow countryman; they say he was up this way; did you see him?" "Yes." "Where did he go?" "He didn't close the gate, so I killed him, of course." To a better future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Rick expressed >>the opinion that it would be difficult to know what a warning would >>be - so I sat down and wrote one in 30 seconds to illustrate >>what I think would be a clear warning. >> >>If I can do that, why can't the UHJ? > > Dear Paul, > > People have the right no be warned when their actions are inappropriate. Those > kinds of warnings people were given or attempts were made to do so.They do not > necessarily have a right to know what the exact consequences of continuing to > act in that manner would be. If this were the case then obedience, would > simply be a response to a specific threat of punishment rather than a > fulfillment of ones obligation to abide by the Covenant. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your comment. The reality is very complex, as is the case with many things. I am a Celtic Reconstructionist. As I perceive it this means striving to live as would have lived our Pagan ancestors, were they now alive. It is an excellent choice in the sense that very little religious discord seems to have existed in Pagan socieities, at least in the West. religious conflict seems to be more a product of monotheistic religions, intolerant of the human diversity of views, even within them. If you would like a glimpse of the serious efforts by modern take a look at the Pagan section of my geocities web page. Most of the books reviewed there are on reading lists of Pagan organizations such as ADF and Imbas. These are actually academic texts on archaeology, early literature, etc. Thrive, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Since I had been telling Pagans since the mid 80s that had >>I not given my allegience to another Faith, I would openly be Pagan, > > Dear Michael, > > You made a good choice. Neo-paganism is a create-it-yourself religion. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. By the way, if it's available to you, but not to the many that have been saying they perceive injustice, then, obviously, its availability has not been adequate to permit justice to be seen to be done. To the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ncto$2bl$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> There's an old quote that justice must not only be done, it must be >> seen to be done. It's invalid to perpetrate what looks, smells, tastes, >> sounds and feels like injustice, and to claim it isn't on the basis of >> concealed knowledge. > > When did I talk about "concealed" knowledge? I talked about people reaching > conclusions when they didn't have sufficient information. I mentioned > nothing about the availability of that information. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. There's an old quote that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It's invalid to perpetrate what looks, smells, tastes, sounds and feels like injustice, and to claim it isn't on the basis of concealed knowledge. to the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1l5h2$f45$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Because there are a lot more people who have observed the lack >> of Baha'i justice than have observed you beating your wife > > I don't think you've quite followed me on this one. Whether or not there is > a "lack of Baha'i justice" is not something one can "observe". Justice is, > by it's very nature, a subjective concept. We can observe things that we > think are not just, but our perception of what is and is not just is almost > completely defined by cultural values. > > To claim objectivity where no objectivity is possible is to beg the > question. As I said, you might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my > wife. You've no more "observed" me beating my wife than you've "observed" > any lack of Baha'i justice. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Baha'u'llah. A far more fascinating question Rick, is how do you define the Baha'i Faith? What are the qualities, characteristics and attributes of this religion? People have gotten into trouble with the hierarchy because they identified their religion more intimately with spiritual principles than with current administrators. I'd be very interested in hearing how one who has no, or at least less, difficulty with the hierarchy perceives his spiritual identity. What to you, Rick, is a Baha'i? This is not a trick question. I will mention that whatever you say, in my opinion, cannot exclude the understandings of others. And, your definition of Baha'i, your description of its qualities, in my view, has significance in any consideration of current reality in the Baha'i Faith. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ncmh$20l$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> When it comes to quite obvious, for me >> and for some others, complete opposition to fundamental spiritual >> principle, then anyone, in my opinion, is fully valid, in holding the >> view that spiritual principle more defines Baha'i than the dictates, >> the decrees, the legislation, the orders, what have you, of the UHJ, > > Slow down. Where do these "spiritual principles" come from? Who, or what, > defined them? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The point is that we have a different understanding of the words, "Challenge their authority". The Prime Minister of Canada and the Parliament of Canada have decided that Canada join in the military activities in Afghanistan. Canadian troops have been in the country and more are going. Now some people say it's terrible they're there and other people say it's terrible there are not more of them. But, neither of these freely expressed opinions is a challenge to the authority of our Prime Minister, nor of our Parliament. They are an indication of the health, vigour and vitality of this much envied country, whose authorities exercise authority and do not feel so insecure thay cannot hear opinions other than their own. Within Baha'i, the harm inflicted on the authority of the Universal House of Justice comes from the Universal House of Justice. They do not have the authority to limit the authority of their successors. Any attempt they make to do so calls them into question. They do not have the authority to interfere in freedom of thought and expression. Any attempt they make to do so calls them into question. Do you not agree that had the Universal House of Justice showed the same wisdom as the Canadian Prime minister and the Canadian Parliament, had they simply legislated according to their understanding and not bothered with what their successors had the authority to do, nor with trying to shut up those, Baha'is for crying out loud, expressing their opinions on spiritual principles, that the authority of the Universal House of Justice would be healthier than is today evident? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Everyone stated that women would be elected to the >>Universal House of Justice when the proper authority, the Universal House >>of Justice, so legislated. > > Dear Michael, > > That statement is in direct contradiction to what the House itself said, as you > well know. To continue to insist on this *is* to challenge their authority. > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Many thanks for your honesty. My response is that if those who are supposed to be guiding the Faith as a world-harmonizing, spiritual Source of All Good, obey Baha'u'llah's command to allow individuals freedom of thought and expression, to balance faith and reason, science and spirituality, to have in this age equality (real equality, not all-male leadership called equality), of women and men, to consider true justice really important, etc., if, indeed, they didn't seek so outrageously to rule contrary to conscience, then there would be a very reduced number of occasions calling on conscience against the dictates of leadership. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Susan Maneck " wrote in message > news:20020110164555.15106.00001214@mb-ba.aol.com... >> Whether certain individuals were declared non-Baha'is 'without warning' > that >> would depend on what 'without warning' is understood to mean. > > Yes, that's where I was headed. Thanks for making the point clear. > >> If what is meant by 'without warning' is were specific threats issued as > to the >> consequences of continuing to act this way, then I suppose it could be > said >> that no such warning was issued in any of these three cases. > > One problem with a direct threat is how to convey such a threat without > impinging upon the individual's right of conscience. I don't think I have a > solution to that one. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. And, at any time the top legislators of Baha'i may have another perception of what is embedded in the text, and, at that time, they possesses full authority to legislate on their then understanding, unlimited by the understandings, rulings and decrees of their predecessors, whatever semantics is used by people today is seeking to avoid Shoghi Effendi's admonition not to try to freeze the Faith in the mold of current limited perceptions. to the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Are you saying that official *elucidations* are being given the status of >>*interpretations* by the Guardian and thus can never be changed? > > Dear Randy, > > Not usually. But in this case the wording of the elucidations themselves > suggest that they can't be changed. I couldn't find the reference to it not > being possible to elect another Guardian but here is how they state the > exclusion of women from the House: > " As mentioned earlier, the law regarding the membership of the Universal House > of Justice is embedded in the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely > appointed interpreters. It is therefore neither amenable to change nor subject > to speculation about some possible future condition." Letters of the Universal > House of Justice, 1988 05 31. > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Actually, this is a fundamental point. According to the brilliant vision of Baha'u'llah, human harmony was promoted by permitting a rainbow of valid personal perceptions whose authors all realized that other views were equally valid, and by having a centre of authority and guidance whose legislation was to be obeyed. Even the Perfect Exemplar often said of his interpretation that this was one way of understanding, but that on reflection others would occur. The attempt to replicate hierarchies of previous monotheistic religions and create an authoritative Baha'i doctrine is at variance to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, and, in actual practise, has been no more successful in creating harmony in the Baha'i Faith today than it was in previous systems above whose errors Baha'u'llah strove to elevate his followers. to the Future, Michael "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > Susan > > What is the textual authorization for the UHJ calling its elucidations > "authoritative" and not just current understanding of the subject matter. > If it is their statement of their understanding of the texts and authorized > interpretations then it is still just an understanding and not an authorized > interpretation. How do they pin authorized on their current understanding > and say it can never be changed? > > You say it can only be changed based on new information, but couldn't the > change also come from changed perceptions of the UHJ members? What exactly > prevents that? How can they not continually discover new meanings in the > texts? > > Cheers, Randy > > -- > > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020110132951.13601.00001171@mb-fo.aol.com... >> >> That is correct. However the cases I named were elucidations. Now while an >> elucidation is an extension of the legistlative power of the House of > Justice >> it is not exactly legislation per se. It is simply an explanation of what > has >> already been laid out in the Writings and in authoritative interpretation. > It >> seems clear to me that such an explanation could only be changed on the > basis >> of new information regarding what is in the Writings or authoritative >> interpretations. >> >> 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 >> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Can't say as I recall having read such a paper. I agree that there may be perceived distinct categories of interpreting, even legitimate ones, but, in my opinion what is done by the Universal House of Justice is legislating, not interpreting. The further point, overlooked by those seeking to add interpretation by whatever synonym to the Universal House of Justice is that were there now accepted by those people who currently do not do so a Guardian, the authority of this Interpretor is not limited by the pronouncements of predecessors. It is not essential that anything specifically stated by Shoghi Effendi be explained as of limited scope in time or circumstances, but a living Guardian, or other individual exercising this function, has full authority to explain the revelation as it applies to the time in which said interpretor resides. So, all that entertaining foot work doing the limbo and the twist, in order to permit the Universal House of Justice to exceed its scope of legislation, so that the Faith can be frozen, contrary to Shoghi Effendi's admonition, falls flat. Whether the rulings of the House are called elucidations or anything else, whether they are somehow present interpretations declared legal or not, whatever function, manner, gender, what have you, of entity they are, the current Universal House of Justice retains full authority to stir, shake or put to sleep such creatures of its predecessors. Considering what some of these things look like, all I can say is, thank Goodness. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1no83$ir7$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Logically, if they are interpreting, they are interpreting, whether >> or not they seek to conceal the fact. > > You exclude the possibility of legitimately distinct categories of > "interpreting". I recall mentioning Dr. Cole's paper on this subject. Have > you never read it? > >> The essential point is that inasmuch as the legitimate sphere of >> the Universal House of Justice is legislation, whatever they do may be >> defined as legislating, subject to reassessment, modification, correction, >> what have you, at any time. They don't have to appoint a Guardian, or, >> to use this example of the Counsellors, in lieu of Hands, someone like >> a Custodian in lieu of a Guardian, but they have full authority to so >> legislate, if they choose to do so. > > They have full authority to legislate, but only on matters not expressly > written in the Writings. They may not simply legislate on whatever issue > they choose. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Since, as I understand it, the Universal House of Justice is explicitly prohibited from straying into the realm of interpretation, whatever categories one creates for responsibilities of the UHJ, all such categories, I suspect, are legislative, whether one deduces this, intuits it, perceives it, or whatever. If they are the legislative body and they are prohibited from interpreting, they are not, legitimately, able to do other than legislate. Rick, with all due respect, I am among those many humans that frown gravely upon dictatorships seeking justification for keeping information secret. Knowledge is power is an Old World saying, and these guys at the top of Baha'i act as if they really believed this old World idea. Logically, if they are interpreting, they are interpreting, whether or not they seek to conceal the fact. The essential point is that inasmuch as the legitimate sphere of the Universal House of Justice is legislation, whatever they do may be defined as legislating, subject to reassessment, modification, correction, what have you, at any time. They don't have to appoint a Guardian, or, to use this example of the Counsellors, in lieu of Hands, someone like a Custodian in lieu of a Guardian, but they have full authority to so legislate, if they choose to do so. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1n7he$gms$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Randy and Rick. >> Forgive me for stepping in in the middle of this. I find this a very >> puzzling question. There seems to be a contrast between the concept of >> "Pronounce upon", which, to me, has the ring of "Legislate" and >> "Elucidate", which to me has the ring of "Interpret". I had thought the >> standard Baha'i understanding was that the Universal House of Justice >> was a legislative body, but not an interpreter. It can legislate >> according to its understanding on all issues obscure and illuminated, >> but it cannot impose an authoritative interpretation, not even by >> selecting a synonym for "interpretation" and imposing that. > > `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament accords three, distinct areas in which the > Univeral House of Justice has authority: matters which have caused > differences to arise, questions that are obscure, and matters not covered by > the Writings themselves. Of those three, the only one that's explicitly > connected to the act of "legislating" is with respect to anything not > covered by the Writings themselves. > > We do know that "questions that are obscure" can involve, but are not > necessarily limited to, matters that are covered in the Writings themselves > but under circumstances that those Writings didn't anticipate, e.g. Shoghi > Effendi passing without being able to appoint a successor. Since the > Universal House of Justice cannot interpret, they cannot tell us what the > texts mean. They can, however, arrive at a conclusion as to what might or > might not be done by way of leglislation in order to address the > circumstances. > > There are two examples of this, both involving the passing of Shoghi > Effendi. The first example is what might or might not be done regarding a > successor to Shoghi Effendi in light of circumstances not anticipated by > `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. The Universal House of Justice's > statement on the matter is that they found no way to appoint or to legislate > a way to make it possible to appoint a successor to Shoghi Effendi. At that > time, the Universal House of Justice also concluded that they could find no > way to appoint or to legislate a way to make it possible to appoint more > Hands of the Cause of God. They have never explained the reasoning behind > those conclusions. I suspect that's because to do so would be to stray into > the realm of interpretation. > > The other example has to do with carrying on the functions of the Hands of > the Cause in light of the fact that the Universal House of Justice could > find no way for new Hands of the Cause to be appointed. In this case, the > Universal House of Justice created, by way of legislation, a new > institution, i.e. the Continental Boards of Counselors, that would carry on > the functions of the Hands of the Cause. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy and Rick. Forgive me for stepping in in the middle of this. I find this a very puzzling question. There seems to be a contrast between the concept of "Pronounce upon", which, to me, has the ring of "Legislate" and "Elucidate", which to me has the ring of "Interpret". I had thought the standard Baha'i understanding was that the Universal House of Justice was a legislative body, but not an interpreter. It can legislate according to its understanding on all issues obscure and illuminated, but it cannot impose an authoritative interpretation, not even by selecting a synonym for "interpretation" and imposing that. Believers have full freedom to perceive reality, according to the divinely created diversity of human perceptions, to share that imperfectly human discernment, while obeying the legislation of the Universal House of Justice. This is my understanding of what used to be taught as standard Baha'i concepts of the distinction between the Scriptural (an ocean of revelation transcending the rainbow of imperfect human perceptions, all valid on the condition they attentively considered the rest) and the Administrative (legislating according to the spiritual principles of the revelation, including the principles of consultation). Is there are distinction between this and the understanding of each of you, and, what specifically is the basis for that question that struck me as so curious? To the Future, Michael Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/9/02 6:11 PM, in article vL6%7.818$A61.96421@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net, > "Randy Burns" wrote: > >> From what statement flows the authority of the House of Justice to pronounce >> upon questions that are obscure? I wasn't aware that there were any, I >> thought they only elucidated? > > I quoted it not but a handful of messages back up in this thread. It's from > `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. > > To to true seeker, and search through `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament for > the words "questions" and "obscure". You'll find it in Section II. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Mistaken Beliefs Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:27 PM Greetings, Rick. The Universal House of Justice today may have an opinion about an issue that is obscure. The Universal House of Justice a generation from now may have an opinion about the same matter that varies. That's fine. If the Universal House of Justice acts on its opinion at any time, that action is a legislative action. Even a ruling not to place an item on the agenda is a legislative matter, and this does not in any way prevent the matter from being considered in the future. You may recall, that someone came into Baha'i cyberspace, possibly to this newsgroup, quite upset that years ago she had received aletter from the Universal House of Justice saying that the Universal House of Justice would decide when women could be appointed to the UHJ and this had very much turned her off Baha'i and made her mad. She was completely unaware of the significance of her statement in a more recent Baha'i history where such a letter would be quite remarkable for those holding a view that the House is bound by previous administrations. It is not an issue of newspeak, of trying to say this is legislation and this may be altered, but this is interpretation, or elucidating and elucidations by the guys in year 1 are elucidated for a thousand years. If the House has the authority today to legislate, including to rule on obscure issues, this authority does not diminish with the passage of time. The House is fully authorized to rule on all issues as it sees fit. Parliament cannot not bind its successor. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1hjls$4lv$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> The Universal House of Justice has full authority to legislate, as it >> perceives the needs of the time. It is one of the fundamental principles >> of legislating that Parliament may not bind its successor. > > Except that this dicussion isn't about the Universal House of Justice's > legislative authority. It's about their authority to pronounce upon > questions that are obscure. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:16 PM :) Greetings, Susan. Great catch. Well done. See why I consider you such a great quarterback. I recognize the potency of this question, and think it's fitting I gotta run now. My team deserves my response, and I will later. That doesn't take away one iota from the splendid work you're doing. Thrive, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>By the same token, there is no scriptual basis for viewing the >>Baha'i Faith as administered without a Guardian. > > Dear Michael, > > Sure there is. It wasn't even mentioned before the Will and Testament. But > references to the House of Justice are to be found in the Aqdas. > >>There's nothing I know of >>in Baha'i Scripture specifying a necessity to perceive Covenant Breakers >>into a future without a Guardian. > > As long as there is a Covenant there exists the possibility that people will > break it. But perhaps you like to envisage a world without the Covenant? > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan By the same token, there is no scriptual basis for viewing the Baha'i Faith as administered without a Guardian. There's nothing I know of in Baha'i Scripture specifying a necessity to perceive Covenant Breakers into a future without a Guardian. If one can envisage the Faith being administered without a Guardian, one can envisage the world as not containing Covenant Breakers. I also feel, to transcend limitations of dualistic options that one can perceive a Baha'i Faith with a Guardian and without the concept of Covenant Breakers. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Another response to this situation is to view the world in such a way >>that there are no Covenant Breakers, > > Dear Michael, > > I'm afraid there is no scriptural basis for doing that. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. How about "michael mckenny" and any key words you like from the letters of the Universal House of Justice on Homosexuality, on individual rights and freedoms (though not that phrase as that's likely to generate material on the McKenny case, rather than my replies to those letters) and was there another significant letter to the USA NSA? And, gosh, did I not respond to a Ridvan message or two? As I recall, my method was to quote the letter and comment on it; I don't promise to agree now with what i said then, but I'd like to look at this material and decide whether to add it to the place that's been waiting for it on the geocities web page. Many thanks for taking the trouble to look. Thrive Ever, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>I'm pretty sure I wrote at least some of these things before TRB. >>Were they on Baha'i Studies, Talisman, SRB? > > Well, can you give me some key words? > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your reply. I'm pretty sure I wrote at least some of these things before TRB. Were they on Baha'i Studies, Talisman, SRB? Anyway, if you happen to notice any posts of mine where I'm replying, paragraph by paragraph as I recall, to letters by the UHJ, I'd be grateful to have these. Thrive, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > If you are referring to things that appeared in this newsgroup, I would not > have downloaded them onto my hardrive as AOL doesn't easily provide me the > means for doing this. But you should be able to get them from Google. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Really? Are you actually incapable of visualizing a variety of other understandings besides your own, even if you think them less correct than yours? What is your understanding that would necessitate the absence of free will? Why must someone have free will removed, or else be declared a Covenant Breaker? That strikes me as one of these dual option entities you objected to earlier. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1hjgd$4b8$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> > Shoghi Effendi's statement that he was relegating to himself the right > to >> > declare people Covenant breakers was time-bound to begin with. > >> Another response to this situation is to view the world in such a way >> that there are no Covenant Breakers > > Precisely how does one do this without obviating the existence of the > Covenant? The only way I know of is to remove people's free will. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I've just posted my comparison of the current practise of the Baha'i AO - there being no Baha'i justice system currently in place - and the similarity this has to what is called unjust when encountered in Third World dictatorships. Personality is invalid. If its unjust in third world dictatorships, it's unjust in current Baha'i AO practise. The name of the entity performing the injustice does not render it other than injustice. You specify precisely what the difference is between my description of current Baha'i AO performance and how you see current AO performance. To a Better Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ikqi$kv9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> We are exchanging views. Always feel quite free to clarify any point >> that's unclear, to state as precisely as you can what you wish to say, >> especially if you feel I'm not comprehending. By all means. How do you >> differentiate precisely the "caricature" from existing Baha'i practise? > > The caricature is a thing you've manufactured for the sake of rhetorical > argument. The general term for such a beast is "straw man". Existing > Baha'i practice is, well, far closer to reality. > > Give me an accurate description of existing Baha'i practice, and then I'll > tell which one I choose. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Possible also includes points of view that vary from your own, and, while doing so, are coherent. It is even coherent to feel that Baha'u''lah has commanded obedience to world harmonizing principles, rather than to an intellectual construct thrust up by the human mind on the surface of the ocean of his revelation, or to anything at all to which nine men attach the name Baha'i. It indeed is one possible perception of reality that the Baha'i Faith is anything at all nine men say it is, and they are to be obeyed even when they encourage those having a world-embracing vision to resign from the Faith. And, it is completely coherent to understand that the Baha'i Faith is world-embracing (not only in the sense of having someone living in Michigan, Ottawa and New Zealand, but in the sense of accomodating a wide variety of viewpoints, a rainbow of personal opinions, more than one of which is coherent. It is completely coherent to believe Baha'u'llah meant what he said when he said (in the Tablet of Wisdom, I believe) that everything carried to excess was harmful, and that such harm also comes from excessive obedience. While being the Source of All Good and the Wellspring of Guidance, the leadership is owed obedience, but when the leadership opposes itself to the essential principles of the revelation, ceases to promote harmony even among Baha'is and instead acts consistent with continuing the office holding of incumbants as the primary policy, obedience becomes harmful. This is a consistent, reasonable and coherent view. It may not be yours, but it is a valid opinion. Those people holding the completely coherent position that Baha'u'llah was correct when he said that anything carried to excess is harmful, and refusing to render excessive obedience, refraining from obedience to orders contrary to the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah, are the exact opposite of hypocrits. It is a valid perception that those people who deny Baha'u'llah on this point of excess and render obedience to hierarchy opposing the spiritual principles of the revelation are the hypocrits. Personally, I don't think anything is gained by the use of such words as hypocrit, nor by insisting, contrary to Baha'u'llah's advice to perceive a rainbow of valid opinions, that all but one viewpoint is not coherent. My posts in this dialogue of personal opinions are meant to uphold the legitimate right of each and every Baha'i to plow her or his own path, within Baha'i, unopposed by those who'd insist it's hypocritical or non-Baha'i to follow the example and the words of Baha'u''lah and see with one's own eyes, think according to one's own understanding, feel in response to the sensations of one's own heart and share openly the harvest of such experience, attentive to the rainbow of other valid opinions. I don't care with which consenting adults those nine men sleep, or anything else connected to their private trek along their spiritual paths. However, when power is used to oppose the spiritual principles of the revelation, to confront Baha'is trying to live the life and share their honest view, fully coherent, even to deprive the friends of their religion, (How many Baha'is have run out the back door because of the powers that be?) such despotism is not to be concealed under the rug and perfumed with sweet sounding, though significantly inexact, designations. When power is abused to the harm of the community, the powerful have done more than simply walk a personal path. To a Better Future, Michael On 1/9/02 4:14 PM, in article a1imdi$nj5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, "Michael McKenny" wrote: > Many thanks for your frank and honest reply. You're welcome. > It is not the only viewpoint possible. Does "possible" include points of view that are incoherent? > As on many issues, humans were > not created as clones; there is a rainbow of perception possible, and, on > this issue it is conceivable that an individual could conclude that the > Revelation of Baha'u'llah consists in more than merely obeying any decree > so ever that comes from the nine guys in charge. Frankly, it's difficult to see how such a view would be tenable. Does not Baha'u'llah command obedience? Note that we're talking about obedience, here, not mere agreement and/or disagreement. I am quite free to disagree with the Universal House of Justice on an issue and still remain a Baha'i. However, to actively oppose the Universal House of Justice's stated view on a matter is a behavioral equivalent of disobedience insofar as both Baha'u'llah and `Abdud'l-Baha have commanded obedience, and proscribed opposition, to that Institution. > What is contrary to my understanding of the Revelation of Baha'i is > to accuse others of hypocrisy for holding a viewpoint at variance to your > own. Well, I don't recall accusing anyone of hypocrisy. Nor, for that matter, was my reference to hypocrisy limited to someone holding a viewpoint that's at variance to my own. My reference to hypocrisy was with respect to calling oneself a Baha'i and behaving in a manner that's logically inconsistent with that stated claim. > In my opinion, the Faith Baha'u'llah intended to harmonize the human > species calls on individuals to focus on personal spiritual development, > to plow one's own line as straightly as one kind without calling others > names. Does that include referring to the members of the Universal House of Justice as "despots"? Was the post to which I'm replying intended to plow your spiritual line or my spiritual line? Regards, Rick Schaut -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I take that as a yes. To a Better Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1il5e$lf5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Are there sub-categories of the word "Dictated" of which you approve >> according to meanings of this word you have in mind? If so, could you >> kindly specify which meanings these are. > > You chose the word, Michael. Why are you asking me what I think it means? > Why don't you explain what you meant when you first used the word? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Yes. I'm typing fast in order to type at all. Typos will be there. The question remains. You objected to "Thinking for oneself" and spoke of "Discernment." What do you mean in this discernment that trumps "Merely thinking for yourself"? To Baha'i, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ikug$l3f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Yes, it is. How do you perceive "Discernment" going beyond "Merely >> thinking for yourself". > > Then the absence of a question mark is merely a typo, and there is no > intended word play on the shades of meaning between "perceive" and > "Discernment"? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I don't claim that I lack sufficient information to claim the Baha'i practise at present is unjust. There are individuals declared non Baha'is without warning. This is done because people have expressed their God- given, Baha'u'llah-given right to have a variety of opinions and to say what they think, on the understanding that what they think is their own viewpoint, subject to change as they progress along the path of life. There is no trial, let along jury of peers, presentation of evidence, statement of charge and ability of the accused to speak to the charges. The very existence of a system where information is concealed to that extent is unjust. The semantic quibble that we do not allow the public to have much information, if any, would not be accepted in the case of a third world dictatorship. Personality is invalid. If a third world dictatorship is assessed unjust for the same practises Baha'is AO currently practise, so is the Baha'i AO. To a Better Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ikf6$khe$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> My wife was looking over my shoulder when I read this, and she said >> that you're communicating that you agree with me. > > Tell your wife that I think she's funny. > > That said, do you mind explaining how one can admit to lacking sufficient > information to claim that a thing is injust and also claim that the same > thing is an obvious injustice? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. As I have said before, although I am a liberal democrat and am one who does not see the existence of such a monarchical personnage as necessarily intrinsically superior to an elected body, constititionally, there is no impediment to the Universal House of Justice reversing its decree that there cannot be a guardian. Parliament may not bind its successors. The Universal House of Justice has complete authority to reverse any and all decisions of its predecessors. This does not mean it has to appoint a guardian. It merely means it constantly possesses the authority to reassess situations and to rule according to its current understanding, unimpeded by the understandings of previous administrations. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>What exactly prevents the UHJ from doing this? If there is nothing in the >>writings to prevent them then they are permitted to do this, should they >>wish to, by legislation I would think. > > Dear Randy, > > In one of the few acts of the Universal House of Justice which they called an > 'elucidation' they stated that it was not in their purview to appoint another > Guardian. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan Surely someone else remembers this. As I recall, she came on (TRB or was it SRB? She certainly doesn't strike me as one who'd have signed on an e-list) gave us all a blast for the reason I mentioned and was gone before those of us who understood what she was saying could communicate with her. Does anyone else remember this? Perhaps the UHJ itself could produce this and any other such letters from its archives. Personally, as I've been saying, I feel the Universal House of Justice is not bound by the rulings of previous administrations, but such letters would be still of significant historical interest. Thrive Ever, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> You may recall, that someone came into Baha'i cyberspace, possibly to >>this newsgroup, quite upset that years ago she had received aletter from >>the Universal House of Justice saying that the Universal House of Justice >>would decide when women could be appointed to the UHJ and this had very >>much turned her off Baha'i and made her mad. > > Huh? What in the world are you referring to? And where is this supposed letter? > > >>She was completely unaware >>of the significance of her statement in a more recent Baha'i history >>where such a letter would be quite remarkable for those holding a view >>that the House is bound by previous administrations. > > I don't know of anyone who has held that the House is bound by previous > administrations. But they are bound by the authoritative interpretations of the > Guardian. Otherwise the Cause would be mutiliated. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Again, this is not intrinsically a restriction on the constitutional authority of the Universal House of Justice. If at some time, the House felt that a Guardian should be appointed, they retain full power to rule that the changed circumstances, where the functions of the Hands are now being conducted by Counsellors, the actual as opposed to the literal, compliance with the directives on this topic would best be met by the Counsellors, or the International Teaching Centre, or to specify any alternative, including the appointment of an individual fulfilling the functions and responsibilities of the Guardian, but with a designation other than "Guardian", say, Protector, Benefactor, Elucidator, whatever. The essential point is that the authority to act resides in the UHJ and they choose to act or not, as they see fit; they are not prevented from acting by the decrees of their predecessors, etc. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Even if that were to happen there will be no Gaurdian as Shoghi >>Effendi needed to appoint his heir _during_ his own lifetime. >> > > And it had to be approved by the Hands of the Cause. We only have two left and > both are in their 90's. > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Your opinion is fully valid, and it is equally valid that at any time the opinion of the Universal House of Justice is that their elucidation may be changed without further quotes, they have the authority to rule according to that understanding, undeterred by any previous rulings. Thrive Ever, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> The Constitutional issue is that they have the authority at any time >>to legislate as they perceive the best interests of humanity and the >>Faith require. > >> such rulings may >>be altered at any time with no further quotes being required. > > > Dear Michael, > > That is correct. However the cases I named were elucidations. Now while an > elucidation is an extension of the legistlative power of the House of Justice > it is not exactly legislation per se. It is simply an explanation of what has > already been laid out in the Writings and in authoritative interpretation. It > seems clear to me that such an explanation could only be changed on the basis > of new information regarding what is in the Writings or authoritative > interpretations. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The Constitutional issue is that they have the authority at any time to legislate as they perceive the best interests of humanity and the Faith require. Parliament may not bind its successors, so no new quotes are required for example in setting what specific times inhabitants on Mars are to fast or commemorate certain Holy Days, and such rulings may be altered at any time with no further quotes being required. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> In other >>words, whether or not the Universal House of Justice might revise a >>pronouncement on a question that's obscure is, itself, a question that's >>obscure. I'd suggest that those who really care about the matter should >>write the Universal House of Justice." >> >>I thought I was answering precisely that question. >> > > Dear Rick, > > My guess is that the would revise an elucidation only in light of new evidence > from the Writings which they might have been unaware of when they made their > original elucidation. For instance the House has called their decision > disallowing the service of women on that body as well as their decision that > there cannot be another Guardian elucidations of what is already in the sacred > text. I would think therefore in the case of the Guardianship, the House would > only change this if something quite unseen were to happen, for instance > discovering a will written by the Guardian or a hitherto unknown Tablet > allowing women to serve. > > However, the House has invented new institutions to replace the functions of > the old ones. For instance, the institution of the Counsellors was formed to > replace the function of the institution of the Hands. Similiarly the House > could conceivably appoint a chief executive to fulfill some of the functions > which the Guardian might otherwise have fulfilled. But obviously the holder of > that office would not possess infalliblity. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susam. I did not mean I knew what the personal preferences of specific individuals are. I meant that it could be perceived to be so. One can always maintain that honestly, really and actually he doesn't wish to be a member of the Universal House of justice for life. What I meant was that the actions of legislating in such a manner that he (all nine of him) has a much better opportunity of remaining a member of the Universal House of Justice for as long as he wishes, can be perceived as acting so as to further personal agendas. That's why I said "consistent with". "Grounded in the Writings" is a highly suspect phrase in such contexts, on the grounds that when you have an ocean of revelation, then a tremendous amount of things can be claimed to be "Grounded in the Writings." Now, I hold that freedom of thought and expression is "Grounded in the Writings." I hold that were Presidennt Bush to act so as to cause the flight or the involuntary exile of those most coherent in expressing a democratic, rather than a republican vision of America and to say his actions were grounded in the Constitution, his perception of grounded in the Constitution would then be lacking something. Personalities are invalid in formal logic. If it would be reprehensible for President Bush, it is equally unacceptable for the members of the Universal House of Justice. To a Better Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Constitutional provisions >>have been used in manners consistent with furthering the personal agendas >>of those currently in power > > And just how does it do that? Do you even know what the 'personal agendas' of > those in power might currently be? On what basis do you know it and know it to > be just a 'personal agenda' rather than something grounded in the Writings? > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. This is not necessarily so. It is possible for communication to be quite quick these days. I would also like to mention that both pagan organizations to which I belong have a "Members Advocate" to consider any and all complaints brought forth against the administration. This is means of seeking to protect the interests of the ordinary member. In my opinion, the major obstacle for Baha'is is the attitudinal, issue that has some people, particularly those who have sacrificed a great deal of time and resources into the specific form of structure, believing the Baha'i Faith is an entity defined by that specific structure and that anyone running into difficulty with the structure is wrong per se, rather than entertaining the possibility the structure itself, especially as applied in the hands of real live imperfect humans, is causing a lot of grief to fellow believers. Thrive Ever, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>> 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. >> >>The above is so far removed from my own direct experience as to be almost a >>completely different reality. > > Dear Rick, > > Surely you would have to agree with at least one of Karen's assertions above, > that it takes forever for the NSA to deal with these matters. On the other > hand, adopting complicated proceedures of due process would only make that > situation worse, not better. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:54 PM Greetings, Susan. well, let's see, if this can quickly fit in here. Actually, the reason that your question is so potent is the fact of the crises within the Baha'i Faith. What has happened within Baha'i is that there's been this indoctrination, so that one understands that this term "Covenant" is the most important aspect of the religion. Now, personally, my opinion is that it's a telling argument that the Baha'i Faith can overcome the sectarianism of all previous religions due to the existence of this Covenant which provides a designated God-given Spiritual Centre, clearly, in the handwriting of the Prophet, etc. So, there can be no confusion, no possibility of error, discord, etc. As is the case with communism and a good many other theories, hard reality and imperfection in human make-up confront humans with something other than such a theory. The human race, although it contains a large number of individuals who can be compelled to do something, is not a totality of clones. And, Baha'u'llah was not wrong when he said that anything carried to excess would result in harm. This applies just as much to "The Covenant" as to anything welse. I fully approve of legitimacy, of elected representatives, of the concept of giving those in charge a chance to administer so they can quickly perceive that their decision isn't working because it isn't so good, not because there's resistence to it. However, if carried to excess, these things are productive of harm. This is the current situation within Baha'i where leadership has acted as if it can command obedience to anything at all, even the exact opposite of those spiritual principles which were the distinguishing and admirable features of the religion. I fully understand that one can look at the ocean of Baha'u'llah's words and extract from this ocean some literal remarks that urge obedience of anything at all. However, some divinely-created human diversity will perceive such words as transcending literal mundanity, just as admonitions to leave not a single believer alive in the central provinces of Iran need not impel what may literally seem commanded. The obedience of anything at all, to the extent of opposing the very basic principles of spirituality, is not possible, thank goodness. It is a very valid human perception that the very act of teaching that the first thing one must do within Baha'i is surrender any morality one possesses to any dictate soever from the men at the top, such an act against morality and god-given humanity is an indication that the leadership so teaching and then so decreeing opposition to Baha'u'llah's spiritual guidance are unfit for leadership of a Baha'i entity. The reality is that some human beings will obey the dictates of leadership; some people drink poison Koolaid, or whatever. But, the act of obeying anything at all is not acceptable for them, for officials in totalitarian states, or for Baha'is. Personality is invalid. If it is reprehensible for followers of cults and dictatorships, it is reprehensible within Baha'i. So, here's to the Covenant, to the "Wellspring of Guidance", to obedience of the world-harmonizing advice inspired by Baha'u'llah. And, here's to justice and seeing with our own eyes and discerning what is contrary to the capacity of humanity (thank goodness) from the actual nobility of this concept of "Covenant." Not everyone can obey unjust opposition to the spirit of Baha'i, but leaders can reflect those principles and overcome the natural causes of the decline of religions. They don't have to be perfect, but they will be more likely to be Sources of Good adding benefit to the species if they are perceived to be advancing the spiritual wisdom of Baha'i'llah above their own apparent continuation in power. This is the central issue. It's not concluded with this post, but to the extent it's seriously addressed by all within Baha'i, in particular, of all with responsibility, to that extent the future well-being of the religion depends. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Dear Michael, > > As long as there is a Covenant there exists the possibility that people will > break it. But perhaps you like to envisage a world without the Covenant? > > 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) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:34 AM Greetings, Susan. I'm awake and have a moment to look this over in detail, I hope. As I mentioned yesterday, the basic concepts you present: that people were told that, "Certain behaviour", i.e. freely expressing personal opinions, was not desired by the men in charge, was not acceptable was made quite clear. However, no one was told, "Okay, either you stop posting now, or else." And, no one was told or imagined that the "or else" that was not communicated would be this novelty of being told one was not a Baha'i. Now, personally, my position was similar (not exactly so) to Rick's. That is, I, unlike Rick, hold that Baha'u'llah is correct when it comes to balance being needed in everything, that is, that all things that are carried to excess are harmful, and this includes the concept of the Covenant and obedience. But, I perceived the Baha'i Faith as meant to be a harmonizing entity, unlike other religions which fragmented easily. What had happened in my case, according to my perception, was that I had been proclaimed a heretic, such a concept being in violation of the efforts of Baha'u'llah to prevent sectarianism, by commanding that there be within the Baha'i Faith freedom of thought and expression. The Universal House of Justice has violated that command by Baha'u'llah and has promoted sectarianism within Baha'i by interfering with the freedom of thought and expression. This is an aspect of that balance, by the way. On the one hand there is freedom of thought and expression, and there is the responsibility of those in charge to alter policies that are demonstrated not to work. On the other hand, there is obedience even of what one disagrees with. No one who thought excluding women from the UHJ was wrong held an election. All said that women would serve when the UHJ said so. This was balanced. Demanding silence was contrary to essential Baha'i balance. It remains so, as does the very harmful continuation of policies of sectarianism by driving Baha'is out of the organization headed by the Universal House of Justice, by trying to re-create Baha'u'llah's Faith as that faction of believers who can be intimidated into being silent, if they don't agree with specific literalist definitions reversing the spiritual foundations of the religion. Anyway, I understood Baha'i to be an entity lacking heresy and sectarianism. Since I had been telling Pagans since the mid 80s that had I not given my allegience to another Faith, I would openly be Pagan, and since the authorities of that Faith had defined me as being outside, no impediment remained to openly stating I am Pagan. However, very valid opinions, perceptions and world views exist that differ from Rick's and my response to such unjust, imbalanced and non-Baha'i legislation by the UHJ. I fully recognize and applaud anyone who acknowledges herself or himself a Baha'i, after the incompetent, harmful and divisive deeds of those who have the responsibility to guide as if the Source of All Good, the Wellspring of Guidance and the World-Harmonizing Centre of Spirituality. My moment is up. Maybe more later. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The above are conclusions of fact where the >>verifiability is subject to evidence we don't have in our posession. > > Dear Rick, > > Well, Michael would certainly have the evidence regarding his own case. :-) And > those of us who were around when these events transpired have a pretty good > take on what happened. > > Whether certain individuals were declared non-Baha'is 'without warning' that > would depend on what 'without warning' is understood to mean. If by that it is > meant that the individuals involved were not told that their behavior was not > acceptable, then I think it is fair to say every effort was made to communicate > this. In Fred's case he rejected an attempt to make such a communication. In > Michael's case as I recall he told the Auxiliary Board Member he met with that > he would not engage in certain behavior after writing his letter to the House, > but he changed his mind after he received the response to his letter. In > Alison's case, meetings were held in her community which she attended which > described what kind of behavior was not acceptable but she was not singled out. > > > If what is meant by 'without warning' is were specific threats issued as to the > consequences of continuing to act this way, then I suppose it could be said > that no such warning was issued in any of these three cases. But is the House > of Justice entitled to expect obedience of Baha'is only when there are > sufficient threats made? If so, can such persons even be really considered > Baha'is? The assumption was that if they had so little regard for the House of > Justice as they were demonstrating on the internet, they were not really > Baha'is or beholden to His Covenant. If the intent had been to declare them > Covenant breakers then they would have received a clear warning. > >>we'd have to hear from the >>institutions as to whether or not they thought they had given warning. > > Sure we have. There are letters written to Michael's wife and to others > regarding Alison. We know in Michael and Allison's case they did think they had > been adequately warned. The question revolves around the issue of what > constitutes 'warning' as I suggested before. Before Michael was removed from > the rolls I don't think any of us knew this could happen. > > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:18 PM Greetings, Susan. Uhm, perhaps refusing to half of the adult Baha'i membership the possibility of standing for election, of not allowing the full and free expression of personal opinion, nor even the publication of research that would promote the viewpoint all adult Baha'is are eligible to serve on the UHJ, of encouraging, or permitting the encouragement, that those most outspoken in expressing other understandings resign from the faith and, even decreeing the non-Baha'i status of some people articulately expressing such views, thus, to speak according to general political analysis, in Old World political terms, both driving out those who could be perceived as outstanding competitors and strongly discouraging any other such competitors from being noticed. Again, personality is invalid; if it's reprehensible in a third world dictaorship, it's reprehensible in Baha'i. To a Better Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>What I meant >>was that the actions of legislating in such a manner that he (all nine >>of him) has a much better opportunity of remaining a member of the >>Universal House of Justice for as long as he wishes, can be perceived >>as acting so as to further personal agendas. > > Dear Michael, > > What particular legislation and constitutional provisions do you have in mind > here which help them stay in power? > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Mistaken Beliefs Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:56 PM Greetings, Rick. Shoghi Effendi admonished Baha'is against the temptation to strive to freeze the Faith according to their limited current perception. An enormous amount of twisting semantics has been undertaken by some (who feel disinclined to follow this admonition) in striving to define a distinction between interpretation (outside the mandate of the UHJ, whatever semantic synonym is selected) and legislation, to permit those now, by definition not inhabitants of the future, to freeze the Faith according to their limited current perception. The Parliamentary principle is fully operational in this case, and Shoghi Effendi is very much correct. Anything decided by the Universal House of Justice may be reconsidered by future administrations, according to their perception then, unlimited by previous opinions, thoughts, decrees, dictates, or whatever other synonyms those listening to Shoghi Effendi and those unaware of, uninterested in and unaccepting his admonition choose to use. To the Future, Michael Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > > The only statement that explicitly grants the Universal House of Justice > authority to repeal something established by the Universal House of Justice > at an earlier date refers explicitly to the Universal House of Justice's > legislative authority. > > The Universal House of Justice's authority to deliberate on questions that > are obscure is stated in a separate clause from the clause that explicates > the Universal House of Justice's legislative authority. > > There are a number of questions that aren't explicitly answered by the text. > These include whether or not the Universal House of Justice's authority to > deliberate on questions that are obscure exists independently from the > legislative authority, and, if so, whether or not the Universal House of > Justice can alter a decision on a matter that's obscure either with or > without a change in circumstances. > > I'll repeat: these questions are not explicitly answered by the text. We > might infer answers to the based on the text, but they are not answered by > the text itself. > > Given that these questions are not explicitly answered by the text itself, > any opinion you or I might give on whether or not the Universal House of > Justice may alter a particular decision, with or without a change in > circumstances, falls within the realm of speculation. Such an opinion would > also, given the division of authority within the Baha'i Faith, have no > binding authority on anyone. > > Lastly, the only principles that govern the extent and limits on the > authority of the Universal House of Justice are those that can be found in > the text of the Baha'i Writings. Any rules or principles involving > Parliament are irrelevant. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Mistaken Beliefs Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:12 PM Greetings, Susan. You have expressed a completely valid perception of reality. In my opinion, everything the Universal House of Justice does is legislation, and they cannot, within their mandate interpret (by any semantic twisting, either), and everything the Universal House of Justice decides, whatever words are used to refer to the decision, may be reconsidered by the Universal House of Justice at any time it sees fit. What counts, of course, is the opinion on the matter by the members of the Universal House of Justice. However, I imagine that should it happen that the House take this line of reasoning, the conservatives would have no trouble accepting the ruling when it comes, or am I being ludicrously naive? Would Rick or others face their moment of truth were the House to make some liberal reconsiderations, in the absence of additional quotes, or can conservatives be counted on to obey even if the House decides Parliamentary procedure does apply to it? To Baha'i, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> The Constitutional issue is that they have the authority at any time >>to legislate as they perceive the best interests of humanity and the >>Faith require. > >> such rulings may >>be altered at any time with no further quotes being required. > > > Dear Michael, > > That is correct. However the cases I named were elucidations. Now while an > elucidation is an extension of the legistlative power of the House of Justice > it is not exactly legislation per se. It is simply an explanation of what has > already been laid out in the Writings and in authoritative interpretation. It > seems clear to me that such an explanation could only be changed on the basis > of new information regarding what is in the Writings or authoritative > interpretations. > > 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 > http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 5:48 PM Greetings, Rick. And among the precepts laid down by God for maintaining the security of the peoples of the world is that whatsoever transgresseth the bounds of moderation is harmful. And among the precepts laid down for maintaining the security of the peoples of the world is that faith and reason, science and religion agree. And among the precepts laid down for the security of the world is the independent investigation of truth, seeing with one's own eyes and not with the eyes of others. And among the precepts laid down for maintaining the security of the world is that justice is the best beloved of all things. And among the precepts laid down for maintaining the security of the world is that in this day women are rulers. They that have violated these commandments of God do have Baha'u'llah to answer to. In the meantime they have caused enormous grief to pure and radiant hearts, and to him will they answer for that, as well. Here's to a better future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1l2j5$b17$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Actually, the reason that your question is so potent is the fact of >> the crises within the Baha'i Faith. What has happened within Baha'i is >> that there's been this indoctrination, so that one understands that this >> term "Covenant" is the most important aspect of the religion. > > "They whom God hath endued with insight will readily recognize that the > precepts laid down by God constitute the highest means for the maintenance > of order in the world and the security of its peoples. He that turneth away > from them is accounted among the abject and foolish. We, verily, have > commanded you to refuse the dictates of your evil passions and corrupt > desires, and not to transgress the bounds which the Pen of the Most High > hath fixed, for these are the breath of life unto all created things. The > seas of Divine wisdom and Divine utterance have risen under the breath of > the breeze of the All- Merciful. Hasten to drink your fill, O men of > understanding! They that have violated the Covenant of God by breaking His > commandments, and have turned back on their heels, these have erred > grievously in the sight of God, the All- Possessing, the Most High." > (Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas) > > You know, we might quibble over whether it's indeed the _most_ important > aspect of the Baha'i Faith, but I don't know that it's possible to claim it > is anything but an _indespensible_ aspect of the Baha'i Faith. It would > rather be like having a constitutional government without a constitution. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:35 PM Actually, Susan, you state the