From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:51 AM Hi Susan-- Not to ask about Fred specifically, but just the process in general. > No, it is not a disciplinary measure. Fred was removed from the rolls because > it was determined he did not meet the criteria of membership as given by Shoghi > Effendi. My reading of SE is that this determination is to be made at the time one signs the card and is not a blanket permission for the LSA/NSA/UHJ to remove someone later, even years later. Now I understand the logic....if a body can determined an individual's qualifications before the card signing they are capable of it afterwards. But since Baha'i is supposed to be a "textually based" religion I would feel a lot more comfortable about this if SE had explicity said somewhere that this could be done. As it is, I read SE to give the AO only two options: either administrative sanctions or CBhood. Can you point me to the Writings where any level of the AO can summarily removed someone from the rolls after they have signed the card? Thanks Peace, MilissaFrom: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Notice: Star Chamber in session Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:05 PM Susan said: Fred was removed from the rolls because > it was determined he did not meet the criteria of membership as given by Shoghi > Effendi. In other words they had a star chamber hearing and Fred was convicted and sentenced to Baha'i death. Cheers, Randy -- Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020102052228.26239.00001175@mb-mk.aol.com... > > > >That National determined on expelling Fred, obviously as a > >disciplinary measure, > > No, it is not a disciplinary measure. Fred was removed from the rolls because > it was determined he did not meet the criteria of membership as given by Shoghi > Effendi. Had they wished to discipline Freddy they would have removed his > voting rights. When that happens one is informed. > 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/ > From: "Curious" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:52 PM Rick Schaut wrote in message news:a1f0g501nv2@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "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. Internet Rick, you cant see me at all. > > 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, Correction....Consciously, deliberately, deservedly 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. Rubbish. You had been repeatedly insulted by others who had long tired of your obfuscation, filibuster and evasion. The question you asked was repeatedly answered, you chose to ignore the answer and continually repeat the question, I chose to insult you for doing so. >To be perfectly honest, I don't know > if Rod has ever given a straightforward answer to that question. Ok Rick....here it is again...you asked "What did I expect the community to do" when one member of the community was being abusive towards another. The answer then, now and always is "Ask them to stop" That was for starters...if they don't stop..."Impose minor sanction" > Much of > what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with > personal invectives. You earned them. > 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. Your post history demonstrates a willingness to perform the most remarkable contortions in defense of inadequate and dysfunctional Baha'i proceedings... up to and including blaming the victim. You have been quite 'entertaining' in your obfuscation. > So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple > question regarding who the "accuser" is in the due process right to face > one's accuser. Do we begin the dance again Rick? The one in which you hold up the dim light of theoretical Baha'i due process against the dark contemporary western legal systems due process? Why bother? It was and remains a evasion of your own devising. The accuser (within the Baha'i community) is the individual/s who present the accusation. Fair due process would entail knowing 'who' has raised the allegation, on what basis and the right to present a defense against the allegations. Play it anyway you like Rick....fact is...Baha'is can be subject to serious allegations and denied the knowledge of who, why and the opportunity to respond. > While you've made several rather obnoxious attempts to > answer that question, you still haven't answered it correctly. 'Correctly'? LOL... You play semantic games with western legal principles Rick. The 'accuser' is the individual who openly alleges I have used a government agency against him. The 'accuser' is the person who proposes that I have organized secret meetings to his exclusion. The 'accuser' is the individual who colludes with the chair of an NGO to draft a letter to himself (chair of NGO) alleging I have engaged in "immoral" and "illegal" activities. So enlighten me Rick.....'correct' my erroneous understanding that the accuser is the one who brings the allegation. > Can you put personalities aside long enough to actually discuss the meaning of the terms > you've used? I do not object to your personality Rick...that is a far too insubstantial target. I object to your persistent, blatant and ethically repugnant evasion and distortion of the core issues. That certainly would be the most Baha'i thing to do. The "Baha'i thing to do"?.....What an interesting turn of phrase Rick....Would that be a reference to Baha u llahs "thing to do" (Justice).......Or a reference to 'the communities' "thing to do" (Denial, evasion, platitude and sanctimonious blaming)? Rod. From: "Ron House" Subject: Re: Not to criticise? Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:04 AM Dave Fiorito wrote: > > Ron House wrote in message news:<3C3BA222.50FEDC57@usq.edu.au>... > > Robert Little wrote: > > > > > > Well then, it is my understanding that this approach you advocate goes > > > against the teachings of Baha'u'llah, which generally and specifically call > > > for Baha'is to NOT publicly criticize, and severely limits, if that is the > > > proper expression, even private criticism. > > > > Please tell us which specific passages from Baha'u'llah's pen you are > > referring to. > > From the Writings: I asked about the claim regarding the teachings of _Baha'u'llah_, not others after him. Deleting those that don't respond to my question, we are left with: > This Wronged One hath forbidden the people of God to engage in > contention or conflict and hath exhorted them to righteous deeds and > praiseworthy character. > > -- Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh p.88 > > Should anyone, in the presence of the Manifestation, discover an evil > intention on the part of any soul, he must not oppose him, but must > leave him to God. > > -- Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf p.110 Neither of these say anything whatsoever about limiting people's freedom of speech. The conflation of reasoned verbal criticism with 'contention' is a seriously debilitating mistaking of concepts. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Milissa" Subject: excommunication Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:51 PM Hi Susan (and Dave)- I've been going through the quotes the last couple of days, comparing the text in the UHJ's constitution with those of Shoghi Effendi's. The text of the UHJ constitution is, well, pretty broad. Basically, you are only a Baha'i if they say you are. Gone is 'Abdu'l-Baha's idea that a man can be a Baha'i even if he hasn't heard of Baha'u'llah! It is still hard for me to see how the UHJ got to take over all this from a textual point of view. It seems that the UHJ can take over any function of the Guardian, not as Guardian of course, but as "Head of the Faith".... This brings me to a question I haven't had before......is there a distinction to be made between Shoghi Effendi as Guardian and SE as "head of the Faith?" Susan wrote: > Yes, the text in question here would be the Constitution of the Universal House > of Justice. > > "The Baha'i community shall consist of all persons recognized by the Universal > house of Justice as possessing the qualifications of Baha'i Faith and > practice." Of course, I was hoping for a text the UHJ didn't write itself! ;) Also, I was hoping for a text that would specifically address the issue of what to do once the recognition has been given and the House wants to take it away. In addition to the lack of balance in all this, as I noted to Dave, another thing concerns me. I can't find textual support for the idea that this recognition can be taken away as a *punishment* for infractions of Baha'i Law. This is all so very befuddling. 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. Peace, MilissaFrom: "ROBIN M PETERS" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:30 AM "Rick Schaut" wrote in message news:3c3e429b$1@news.microsoft.com... > (snip) > 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 > > Hi. The way I see it, the threat can be conveyed in this way: "You have a choice. Either you agree to our way of doing things or you will no longer be a member." In other words, the person is free to choose between membership on the leadership's terms or nonmember status. There are two problems with that IMHO. The first is that at least in the circles in which I travel, all of my peers recognize that this is truly a threat rather than a choice and react accordingly. If they are afraid of losing a valued peer group, they will do anything they are told because to do otherwise would mean loss of the valued peer group (in this case, they'd lose the right to practice a beloved religion if they didn't do it the Administrative Order's way). If they think the Faith as it's currently practiced is so much bull guano (pardon the indelicacy), they'll tell the AO "up yours" and actually brag about being declared a CB or having their administrative rights denied. I have also noted that at times, it is easy to paint a choice in such a way as to make the listener not even realize a choice is being offered; I'm not referring to the aforementioned threat, but to a situation in which the speaker is so gifted at using words that he or she can "veil" a choice behind a curtain of words. Therefore, the listener will not even know he or she is being put in a position of choosing between two alternatives (in this case, choosing what to do about one's Baha'i membership status). Psychics do something similar all the time, veiling requests for information so thickly that not even they are recognizing that they are asking for information (preferring to believe that they are psychic). You are also at least a little bit right, Rick, in acknowledging that there are really no easy answers here. Communicating something like this is tricky at best because the speaker means to say something one way and the listener hears what the speaker says in the listener's own way. Robin Peters From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:07 PM Paul Unity is the new "false God" of Baha'i. We have raised it to an altar far above its station. As you say below: >everyone else is entitled to their own > interpretations, but must never speak them We have of course sacrificed our personal opinions and the right of expression on the false altar of "Unity." Unity is our Golden Calf. Unity, to be effective, must occur in the diversity of many opinions freely expressed. Roy A. Medvedev, the Soviet dissident scholar, once commented: "It is safe to say that if by some miracle Marx, Engels, and Lenin were to appear among us, most of the works they might write analyzing our social conditions would not be passed for publication." I wonder if the same might not be true for "our" Central Figures? This problem of following after false gods can be corrected but only if the Faith is willing to avail itself of some self examination, i.e. uncensored self examination. A sure step of approach to this path would be to end review once and for all. Cheers, Randy -- Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3c41db30@212.67.96.135... > SNIP > > And, in the same document, did not Abdu'l Baha define and limit > the sphere of expertise of the elected UHJ to be "legislation", and > then specify that the two new authorities of the Faith - the UHJ > and the Guardian, would not stray into each others territory. > > So, do you consider that with the ending of Guardians, the UHJ > can now interpret, and everyone else is entitled to their own > interpretations, but must never speak them? > > Or, does this phrase rather refer to the false interpretations > of individuals with judicial authority contradicting the rulings of > the authoritative body of the Faith? > > Besides, there's no call for low blows to the sincerely held > religious beliefs of others, even ex-Baha'is - whatever happened > to associating in the spirit of radiance? > > Paul > > From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: excommunication Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:55 PM Hi Susan-- > Well, it would be pretty hard to have an organized religion on that basis. :-) Just a rhetorical question but I wonder why God has to have His/Her religion organized in the first place. Philosophers can and have had as large an impact. oh well........ > But during 'Abdu'l-Baha's time people were called Baha'is and counted on our > rolls who showed the least amount of sympathy towards the Faith, even if they > didn't consider themselves to be such. Yep..things have definitely changed. > But obviously I think Baha'i means two different things in this context. > 'Abdu'l-Baha is using Baha'i in the sense of a spiritual state not exclusive to > us as believers, while the House is speaking of membership in a specific Faith > community. The problem here is that the message I get from the House is that these things really can't be separated. Have I misinterpreted them? Are you really saying that I could refer to myself as a Baha'i in the spiritual state and have the UHJ accept this as legitimate? I certainly hope so, as it would be a way for me to deal with all this stuff. It would be nice if there could be an *officially* recognized category of "independent" or "unaffiliated" Baha'is.....Baha'is who can't for whatever reason sign the card, yet are included in the community at a deeper level than just any non-Baha'i can. This is just a thought and will probably go over like a lead balloon. (snippage) > I'm not sure why you would consider membership status to be a function of the > Guardian. It strikes me as an administrative task. I know it is primarily the responsibility of the LSA to determine this and, in his lifetime, Shoghi Effendi could be appealed to. > >This brings me to a question I haven't had before......is there a > >distinction to be made between Shoghi Effendi as Guardian and SE as > >"head of the Faith?" > > In practice, no. But then the Guardian and the House never co-existed. Yea and this is why I know there can never be a clear answer to me. Because his two roles were so close, it is hard (for me) to see where the UHJ can take up tasks SE performed in his lifetime, tasks that he performed not as Guardian but as "head of the Faith"......For example, the UHJ confirms that they cannot appoint another Guardian because only the current Guardian could do that. Yet, Shoghi Effendi was just as explicit that only the Guardian can declare some a CB, yet the UHJ did take over this function. I don't understand, from a textual point of view, why they could take over one function and not the other. > >Of course, I was hoping for a text the UHJ didn't write itself! ;) > > LOL. But keep in mind that it wasn't something they made up because of the > present crisis. This was written a generation ago. Yes and I do appreciate this. Of course, like you said, disenrollment/excommunication like what happened to McKinney and Marshall are new developments. It is very troubling to me that the UHJ is not confined by *any* standard practices or procedures and the individuals themselves have no guarantees of protection. The House itself admitted that there is no due process in the Faith. >I can't find textual support for the idea > >that this recognition can be taken away as a *punishment* for > >infractions of Baha'i Law. > > Except in cases of declaring someone a Covenant breaker it isn't. Are you serious? You don't think being kicked out of a religion you love and have worked hard for is not a punishment? you quote the letter to the wife (parts I have snipped) > "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. I know this will sound very cynical, but I can't help it. If the UHJ cannot tolerate a few misguided people who send them emails or post book reviews on the web, then how the hell can I really expect them to lead us into a global homeland where diversity is honored? I know this message is not the one Baha'is want to give to the world, but it does appear that everything is sacrificed to this concept of unity. If the UHJ *really* wants to demonstrate to a *very* skeptical age that the Baha'is have even the remotest chance of uniting a very diverse world while at the same time honoring differences, then disenrolling people is not the way to do it. I'm sorry, but to the outside world it looks cultic and all the talk about how membership is voluntary is not going to be impressive. > "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. This is where they have conflated the spiritual status of Baha'i with membership in a community. The distinction 'Abdu'l-Baha made in 1912 is gone. :( 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. I don't think I will ever be able to tell the difference between "interpretive functions" and "ultimate decision-making power"....but that is just me. > 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." But now there is a new question, isn't there? Sure, no one can be compelled to be a Baha'i. But apparently they can be compelled to not be a Baha'i. Why is one considered an action of spiritual choice and the other not? > 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." What I have never understood is how it can determine what Michael does or does not desire? Unless he flat out said "I don't desire to understand" how would it know? This is the kind of decision I don't think the House can make since it involves something only God knows. > As such he could neither be expected to abide by the provisions of the > Covenant, nor punished for failing to do so. gee, I guess that is big of them. > Perhaps we are not as powerless as you imagine. It certainly feels that way. >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. The problem is that Baha'u'llah promised a world where we can respond to God in our own way with freedom and not have some heavy authority figure come around and tell us that our feeble attempts are selfish (you are just trying to make God in your own image) or evil (you are trying to destroy the Covenant). Peace, and thanks for taking the time to respond. MilissaFrom: "Alma Engels" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:35 AM An audit sounds great -- if it were feasible, Susan. But the treasurer on a LSA, like others may be an amateur at keeping books, etc. And the books may be meaningless. Think this doesn't happen? Some years ago the treasurer for the LSA where I live managed to 'appropriate' something like $90,000 over a few years. The LSA hadn 't a clue. It was members of the treasurers family who became suspicious and forced the treasurer to confess to the LSA. In peace, Alma Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020115001217.23567.00002502@mb-md.aol.com... > > > >I'm asking you to Role Play, one step at a time. > >I'm asking what your responses and expectations would be > >under the circumstances described. > > Well my first response would be to ask him what the heck he is talking about. > > Is that what you are looking for? > > >Are you asking for an audit? > > I'm suggesting that an audit would have already been done routinely on a yearly > basis. > > >"An audit wont do any good , the money disappears > >between donation and banking, It's been doing on for some time now." > > I would tell him this is a very serious charge and demand he present his > evidence. > > 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/ > > From: "Rebecky" Subject: Re: Open Letter to Susan Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:05 PM "Mavaddat" wrote in message news:... > Hey Becky, > > It's sad to hear that you chose to leave the Faith that you love so much. I > just wanted to point out that it isn't against Bahai law to read Covenant > breakers' writings. In fact, there are many Bahais who are hold the > responsibility of talking with these people. Basically, Bahais believe that > Covenant breakers have the power to destroy this Cause, however only if we > allow ourselves (Bahais) to be mislead by them. By speaking with a Covenant > breaker, we are testing our own Faith in the Words of Baha'u'llah; and since > we do not know the strength of our Faith in the Covenant, we may be testing > ourselves beyond our ability. (Kinda like those guys in the gym who try to > bench press WAAAY too much and end up popping a vein.) Baha'u'llah says, > "Purge your sight, that ye may perceive its glory with your own eyes, and > depend not on the sight of any one except your self, for God hath never > burdened any soul beyond its power." This means that only tests given by God > can be assuredly overcome. Anyway, this is what the Universal House of > Justice has to say about the matter: > > "To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the believers > and does not constitute in itself an act of Covenant-breaking. Indeed, some > of the Baha'is have the unpleasant duty to read such literature as part of > their responsibilities for protecting the Cause of Baha'u'llah. However, the > friends are warned in the strongest terms against reading such literature > because Covenant-breaking is a spiritual poison and the calumnies and > distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such that > they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds of doubt > unless he is fore-armed with an unshakable belief in Baha'u'llah and His > Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts." > Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated October 29, 1974 > > If you want to know more about the matter, please check out The True Seeker > library result on the subject or just check the site yourself. > The True Seeker library result on the subject: > http://www.ibiblio.org/bahai-bin/true-seeker.pl?word=Covenant&within=2&direc > tion=either&word2=Breaker&context=5&book=abl&book=adj&book=aro&book=ba&book= > sb&book=bne&book=bp&book=bwf&book=bk&book=cf&book=be&book=142-2&book=sch&boo > k=142-4&book=db&book=dnd&book=dg&book=esw&book=fwu&book=fn&book=gwb&book=gpb > &book=ahw&book=phw&book=he&book=aqd&book=jap&book=iqa&book=lanz&book=ldg1&bo > ok=ldg2&book=mf&book=ma&book=mc&book=mbw&book=pt&book=pm&book=pb&book=pwp&bo > ok=pdc&book=pup&book=prh&book=sdc&book=sab&book=swb&book=svfv&book=saq&book= > taf&book=tab&book=tb&book=tdp&book=tn&book=ud&book=wt&book=wob&submit=Search > check the site yourself: > http://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/TrueSeeker/ > Thanks for the kind response. I had erroneously presumed the "rules" would be the same for the internet as snail mail, but I can appreciate the difference in personal correspondence (via snail mail or e-mail), which we were strongly asked NOT to engage in, and public message boards. The whole "shunning" issue is too hard for us. Being inquisitive types, my husband and I asked "too many questions" not only concerning CB's, but also UHJ doctrinal positions which seemed, to us, contradictory to the writings. We asked what would happen to us if WE were declared CB's because of our questioning and desire for fair-minded open discussion of Bahai doctrine -- discussions which could NOT be terminated by the old "UHJ infallibillity dead end". In answer to our questions about CB, it was confirmed to us that if we ended up getting ourselves declared CB's, none of our Bahai friends could ever associate with us again -- no phone calls, no correspondence, no picnics, nothing. All contact severed. Understandably concerned, we did further research on our own, and read of cases where families had been close for years in the Bahai community, children grew up together, then when the UHJ declared one family CB, all ties were severed. Children were forcibly removed from contact with their lifelong friends. (This social pressure was apparently used to force the CB to "repent" and rejoin the orthodox fold.) Some of these CB cases occurred over nothing more than a request for public discussion and open debate of textual interpretation -- a person, in some cases a respected university scholar, questioned the UHJ's official interpretation of texts and offered carefully researched evidence for consideration of another point of view. But because of the "UHJ infallibility" issue, they were declared CB's. When we read these cases, it struck us like a Scopes Monkey Trial or a Stalinist "counter-revolutionary enemy-of-the-state" or a Goebbels' book-burning scenario. What a shame -- some of the CB's were repected authorities in Arabic language and Islamic culture and the Sufi literature from which Baha'ullah clearly borrowed. How much light they MIGHT have shed on the traditions preceeding the Bahai writings, had they only been allowed to share their knowledge. KNOWLEDGE is not poison -- IGNORANCE is poison. (I personally gained a much deeper understanding and appreciation of Baha'ullah's "Valleys" after I read Attars' "Parliament of the Birds" and other Sufic literature). I apologize for being so confrontational and argumentative. I really have no right -- my husband reminds me that I need to stop visiting Baha'i message boards. After all, he points out, the Baha'i organization is behind us -- we are Quakers now. The Quaker community openly welcomes Baha'ullah's writings and insights, and we can discuss them freely in that setting without fear of censure. So I will heed his wisdom and go my way in peace (I can't promise to stop reading -- but I will refrain from posting). Thanks again for your kind response. BeckyFrom: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Saturday, January 19, 2002 2:50 PM Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3c437ee5@212.67.96.135... > > No - I don't see the parallel. Liberal Baha'i thought suspects that > the UHJ's aim *was* precisely what you say - to shut up the critics > by engendering a vague and widespread fear of expulsion. However, > I don't think the cop would get away with shooting the robber and > then saying "he was warned - didn't he read in the news where > a bank robber got shot last week in Boston?" I think this is essentially the case here Paul. The UHJ wants to command the faithful to respect, love and fear them _but_ they insist that the respect, love and fear is natural and unfeigned and even unasked for. So they spread around a large number of broad hints and hope that everyone responds. They refuse to issue a direct command and then kick someone out for refusing to obey. This serves two purposes (engenders mucho respect among the faithful for the House that isn't afraid to use its power) and further reinforces the unspoken and indirect command itself. Someday soon there will be 300 million pages of letters and elucidations from the UHJ that all Baha'is will have to live in fear of, for breaking the commandment of even one line of one letter might merit an expulsion. In the final analysis, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, and the UHJ answers only to God and Baha'u'llah, and as we all know, neither if those two is taking phone calls from the faithful right now. Cheers, Randy From: "Jeremiah" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:12 AM Hi Brian > > I may have got this wrong, but are you referring to our Fred? Halloooooo > !!! are you there? Same universe as the rest of us?? Fred certainly did > start this whole shebang, but have you seen how he has behaved? The man > is an advert for miscommunication. Yes and no. Many times he is right on the money and and I can vouch for that!!! Other times he becomes a joke and keeps everyone thinking and tied up in semantics...he does bring up lots of topics for everyone to think about that need airing....a hell of a lot better than under the carpet. Sometimes the topics he introduces wins out against his intention...so that is good in its own way. I figure since he was our benefactor why not look to his good points instead of gang banging him to death with his shortcomings. One time on SRB somebody told him not to get his knickers in a twist, and he replied in a most serious tone to the person "Madam I wish to inform you I do not wear knickers". So he is good for some information, topics, persistance, proactiveness, and good for a laugh now and then. Little was trying to hurt the guy with the panopticon effect - and I don't respect that in the least.... > Perhaps I should ask you in another language, maybe you have problems in > understanding what has been going on. He must be the only founder of a NG > who has been systematically ignored by the vast majority of participants > due to his cretinous behaviour. Knowing this Little didn't have to be so little, did he? > > And if you had searched the archives or been a regular reader, you will > find that no-one asserts he is not a Baha'i. Simpy that he is not a > Baha'i in good standing. Personal beliefs are personal, after all. Little did and I don't like that damn judgementalism that is so inappropriate...as if Little is a Baha'i and Fred isn't - get real...enrollment doesn't make a person a Baha'i and even Baha'u'llah said his worst enemies are those that bear his name and don't follow the Teachings....we see a lot of that on TRB! Joy to ya Brian - Jeremiah > > Brian > > > In article <3bf0bb0d.0201282030.12638327@posting.google.com>, "Jeremiah" > wrote: > > > All this doesn't mean he does not have Bahai Faith - sorry to see you > > act like this to the man who started this list and made it possible for > > you to be here on your perch of righteousness - shame on you. Jeremiah. > >From: "Jeremiah" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:30 PM All this doesn't mean he does not have Bahai Faith - sorry to see you act like this to the man who started this list and made it possible for you to be here on your perch of righteousness - shame on you. Jeremiah. Doctor Electron wrote in message news:... > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, "Brian Walker" > transmitted: > > >I am on a linux system, well firewalled > > Sounds good to me! > > >Decent people hack, criminals crack) > > Yes, if we could only get the news media to learn the hack/crack > difference. > > >The one who calls himself BIGS is most > >certainly not in good standing. He has lied about his status, and posts > >an invalid ID to underline the point that he is a liar. > > Reminds me of some one I once knew who had the theory they could make > statements without supporting data and even better, that whatever a > person says, the opposite is true. It seems this person has been > fairly successful in life, but I am not sure if it is because of, or > in spite of, these theories. > > >We have CBs here, > >non-Baha'is, Moslems, disenchanted Baha'is, disenrolled Baha'is, and - a > >few - Baha'is in good standing. > > Sounds like something for a FAQ. > > >So doc. Meet me. I am Brian Walker, from Hong Kong. I sail, do medicine, > >keep fit and enjoy films. > > Pleased to meet you. > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message.From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:35 AM Hi Karen and Dermod-- YOu know the practice of review always bothered me, not just because it is not effective anyway or that it really burdens an individual author unnecessarily and hampers independent investigation of truth. Its just so damn embarrassing. When I was an undergrad, I used to think the religion professors were just biased. Now bias certainly exists against new religions so I am not saying it wasn't a factor, but lets be brutally honest. Whether Baha'is like it or not or think its fair, the practice of "review", as long as it continues, will keep Baha'i in "cult" status not only in the eyes of academics, but the public at large. Anyway, I once had a discussion with one of my religion professors and when this issue came up he actually laughed at me. He laughed at me! And said, "Milissa I thought you were smarter than to join a group like that." I'm sorry, but the practice of review makes Baha'is look like a joke. And it makes Baha'u'llah look soooo bad. What doesn't the UHJ understand this??? Peace, Milissa "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message news:... > > > > > > So you are saying that those who might be best informed as to the > facts you are > > > dealing with were automatically excluded. Interesting. > > > > Even more pissed off by the fact that outside editors know and accept > > the fact that BIGS are biased and incapable of being objective about a > > piece sent for review.<< > > Yep, word is getting around. And that has happened only quite recently, > between the time Juan's article was rejected, and I contacted them. >From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:11 AM Milissa wrote in message news:df0d6959.0201300835.23b1f793@posting.google.com... > > YOu know the practice of review always bothered me, not just because > it is not effective anyway or that it really burdens an individual > author unnecessarily and hampers independent investigation of truth. > Its just so damn embarrassing. When I was an undergrad, I used to > think the religion professors were just biased. Now bias certainly > exists against new religions so I am not saying it wasn't a factor, > but lets be brutally honest. Whether Baha'is like it or not or think > its fair, the practice of "review", as long as it continues, will keep > Baha'i in "cult" status not only in the eyes of academics, but the > public at large. Actually it isn't the policy itself, it is more the application of it. The application is immature and self serving in the extreme. I was probably in college years before you and the attitude of the professors was much the same. In general, religions are something that only happened in the distant past and not in historical times. There is a strong desire to address everything more recent in psychological terms or sociological terms only. The assumption is that Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha would not have held up in the light of the modern day as a "geniune" religious phenonenon. That is what they are really saying. What the Faith has done to its scholars (even if they were young and immature) is shameful and obviously makes Baha'i seem Cult like in the extreme, but I would doubt that this is a key issue for Professors of Religion. > > Anyway, I once had a discussion with one of my religion professors and > when this issue came up he actually laughed at me. He laughed at me! > And said, "Milissa I thought you were smarter than to join a group > like that." This is an old line, Milissa, one used by Professors probably since the time of Voltaire. Cheers, Randy > From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Repost: pusallanimity of Baha'i administration Date: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:08 PM Hey Pat, I know that you try to be fair, and thus hope that you might come to see how unfair some of your remarks are: > > > But some possibilities is that the > > lettter he saw may have been designed to make him seem in error and there > > was no real intention of that letter ever being sent out. > > I would consider that to be .6 likely. > So better than 50/50 odds that he was a victim of deliberate disinformation in this case? Why pile on further when the person has already been victimized by the AO? The NSA > would have had to been monitoring this group - before the fact - to recall the > directive it had sent out to the American community - preposterous! > You think it preposterous that the NSA is monitoring Baha'i discussion in cyberspace? > > Definitely. There is a good chance that his spy in Wilmette was a double spy > and fed him poison, or that the folks at the BNC were sick and tired of being > ratted out by Juan's spy and gave Juan's spy the poison. > And all this reflects badly on Juan and well on the AO? How? > The take-away here, regardless of how Juan's spy gave him the poison > (unknowingly or knowingly), Juan got poisoned because A) people could predict > that he was looking for dirt in Wilmette, And he's looking for damaging information because he knows there is a lot there, correct? and B) people knew he does not bother > checking the veracity of his dirt, Wait a minute. How would you recommend the NSA's public enemy number one to check the veracity of damaging information? Call Henderson and say "I've been given this information by someone on your staff, and just want to check to make sure it's accurate? This is not a matter of "not bothering" but being in a position where checking it is impossible, as far as I can tell. he just runs with it - he "wants to > believe". Sadly, this calls into question all of his smearing of the AO. His > opinions are _not_ those of an unbiased academic, but someone with an agenda > adverse to the AO. This is outrageously unfair. To say that Juan *wants to believe* bad things about the AO as if that were some condition that just rose up in him, independently of bad things he found out about the AO, is just wrong. I only met him once, in early 1996 (or late 1995), and at that point he thought that the AO was privately supportive of the liberal scholars in their struggles with fundamentalist attackers online. He said so to me and expressed trust for some characters that I didn't trust a bit. If, now, Juan is *inclined* to believe bad things about the AO, it's not because of *wanting to* but because its behavior towards him and many others has been so abominable. And this inclination is a *consequence* of its behavior from 1996 on, as my observation establishes. But my main point is that your distinction between an "unbiased academic" and someone with an "agenda averse to the AO" is untenable and unrealistic in general, and terribly unfair in this instance. Juan is incontestibly an academician. No one is unbiased, so of course Juan isn't. He's simply trained to set aside his biases in his academic work, and has done so to the point of getting more recognition from non-Baha'is than any other Baha'i scholar. But scholars who can work around their biases when doing history or Middle East studies are not therefore immune from having political agendas. Especially not when they've been outrageously attacked by the institutions against which they develop an agenda. So that's the untenable and unrealistic part-- the thing you are disillusioned with Juan for not being does not exist. The unfair part is that the reason he has an "agenda averse to the AO" is because to his surprise and dismay, the AO demonstrated repeatedly an agenda averse to him and all independent scholarship about the Faith. Moreover it has done so in the cruelest and most relentless way. So you are taking the outrage of a victim as proof that he wasn't really a victim at all. And then adding insult to injury by furthermore arguing that the victim's anger is proof that *everything* he has ever said about his persecutors, at any time, whether or not it involves his own case, can be dismissed. There are obvious reasons for *you* to "want to believe" something-- that the institutions to which you pledge loyalty are in fact behaving in a way that merits such loyalty. Whereas Juan, as I know full well from our one personal encounter, absolutely did *not* "want to believe" ill of the AO, and in fact until it shafted him kept on believing it to be far better than it really is. Cheers, PJFrom: "Dr. Herbert West" Subject: And don't forget this... Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 1:12 PM "Juan Cole" wrote in message news:619f1452.0202090922.304a629b@posting.google.com... > And, could we please know what "assistance" the National Spiritual > Assembly has given any of the victims? Or any non-Baha'is a all? Or > any Baha'is, for that matter, in the United States? They have an > annual budget of $25 million a year or so. What percentage of that > does the US NSA spend on "assisting" people in need? "In November the National Spiritual Assembly announced with deep regret our decision to close the Baha'i Home, which has provided sheltered elder care for 43 years as a dependency of the House of Worship. After consulting Baha'is with expert knowledge of elder care, we concluded that the Home would have to be enlarged to enhance resident accomodations and make its operation economically feasible. The financial challenges we currently face render us unable to expand and improve the Home, or to continue its operation in the current state. ..." [Dec. 31, 2001, NSA Letter] Not much to say about this. Poor planning? Mismanagement? Short-sightedness? Who the hell knows. It sure seems to me they could save the Home if they were inclined to. This plus the 43 jobs cut and some other cutbacks amounted to a $2.5 million reduction in their budget. I didn't see anything about selling RHs mansion though, so they must have a ways to go before being really broke (never mind the old people). John Oh, and don't forget that donating cash isn't the only way to contribute to the National Fund. Securities will gladly be accepted. And please do consider naming the USNSA primary benificiary of any life insurance you might have. From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:50 AM Hi Juan-- Thanks for posting this, as it saves me the effort of asking. All I can say is damn. Regardless of the Prayer for America issue, this document is embarrassing. It just screams CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL I do appreciate their concern for sensitivity, but one part really puzzles me: > * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to > express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as > Bahá'ís, > imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss > the > Bahá'í Faith. Why should Baha'is have to stay in the closet? This is really weird....we have an opinion on what is probably the most significant event in recent American history and we can't share *spontaneous* expressions of religious sentiment without getting it preapproved? To me this is the issue and not whether a particular prayer was banned. damn review is embarrassing. Peace, MilissaFrom: "Freethought110" Subject: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:39 AM FYI August 1999 Transmitted by email: XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX U.S.A. Dear Baha'i Friend, The Universal House of Justice has reviewed the letter of 8 May 1999 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, signed by you on behalf of VVVVV Press and copied for the House of Justice, on the subject of the manner in which VVVVV has promoted to Baha'is Juan Cole's book, Modernity and the Millennium. We have been asked to write as follows. A good deal of the work of VVVV Press, which you have ably directed during the twenty or so years of the firm's existence, has constituted a significant contribution to the advancement of the Cause we all love and seek to serve. It is clear, too, that, beyond the administration of VVVVV's activities, this valued contribution owes a great deal to your own creativity and professional talents. These circumstances move the House of the Justice to share with you candidly the deep concern it feels regarding your relationship with the Baha'i Faith. As you are aware, such concern prompted earlier efforts, including those made by Counsellor Stephen Birkland and Dr. Pierre-Yves Mocquais, a member of the Auxiliary Board, in their interview with you and your wife, Dr. GGGGGGGG, in May of 1996, to draw to your attention the serious dangers of the course you have long been following. At that time, you expressed to Mr. Birkland your deep regret over actions on your part that were seen by the House of Justice to be clearly in conflict with the beliefs you profess as a follower of Baha'u'llah, as well as your firm assurance that your actions would not again give cause for such intervention. It is impossible to reconcile professions of this kind with the arguments made by you in the 8 May letter. The inappropriateness of the promotional statements and of the approach taken in the letter serves as an illustration of the attitude and behavior on your part that have long been a source of difficulty. It is these personal elements that the House of Justice has asked us to address. Clearly, no one would dispute the right of Dr. Cole to write and publish whatever work a publisher is prepared to handle. Nor has anyone questioned the right of a Baha'i who is interested in such a book to purchase it. To suggest that the House of Justice is saying otherwise would be to seriously misconstrue the nature of its concern. The book itself is incidental to the problem of Mr. XXXXXXX 3 August 1999 Page 2 attitude on your part that the National Assembly was asked to raise with you. As a participant in various Internet discussion groups over the past five years, and particularly in the last year or two, you cannot but be aware from these exchanges that Dr. Cole has embarked on a deliberate assault against the Baha'i Cause, in which he has not hesitated to attack its institutions, to misrepresent its fundamental teachings, and to abuse the trust of Baha'is who had been led to believe that they were engaged with him in a detached and scholarly search for the truth. These same Internet exchanges exposed you, like other participants, to a flood of calumny and invective against a great many of your fellow believers, on the part of Dr. Cole, that is scarcely credible in rational discourse. Had such a book as Modernity and the Millennium been written by a disinterested non-Baha'i scholar, its misconception of the nature of Baha'u'llah's Mission and its other shortcomings would have represented no more than understandable weaknesses of an honest attempt to explore a religious phenomenon as yet little understood in the West. Indeed, in this context, such an attempt to make the Baha'i Faith comprehensible to the Western academic mind, however inadequate it might appear to knowledgeable Baha'i scholars, would surely have earned its author a measure of genuine Baha'i appreciation for the writing and research skills deployed in devising it. As you -- like other participants in certain Internet discussion groups -- are well aware, however, the book's author is not a disinterested scholar. Rather, he is a deeply embittered individual who, as his book was in preparation, had just denounced in the most intemperate language an apparent twenty-year allegiance to Baha'u'llah, in the wake of a failed attempt on his part to impose his private ideological agenda on the Baha'i community's study of Baha'u'llah's Message. Modernity and the Millennium represents an effort to provide the current stage of this long-running scheme with the underpinnings of scholarly rationalization. What is this rationalization? Although distorted by its evasion of Baha'i Texts that contradict its main assertions, and blurred by reliance on speculations peculiar to its author's purpose, the thesis appears to run somewhat as follows: Baha'u'llah's work and Writings represent essentially one of several efforts by Middle East thinkers to work out a "response" to the challenges posed by European modernity in the form of rationalism, revolution, nationalism, economic upheaval, feminism and other contemporary developments. Although Oriental in origin, this particular "response", in contrast to various others, was unusually "progressive", "liberal", "idealistic", even "radical". Because it "grew up" in a congenial modernist era, its Author was able gradually to adjust and revise the ideas with which He had been "grappling", through benefiting (in a manner generally insinuated rather than explicitly stated) from successive interactions with other thinkers and movements. By 1862, apparently in order to deal with the problem of religious exclusivity in the Muslim world, and in response to some form of "private mystical experience", He "decided to make a prophetic claim of his own". As mentioned above, if such a view had represented the interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Mission arrived at by a non-Baha'i as the result of his objective study of the sources, no Baha'i institution could have an objection. Its relevance to the concern of the House of Justice about your behavior arises rather from your long-standing and widely recognized involvement with a few present and former members of the Faith who seek to foist this caricature of Mr. XXXXXX 3 August 1999 Page 3 the Cause on the Baha'i community, and your perceived identification with their purpose. The Covenant, the distinguishing feature of Baha'u'llah's Revelation, has been made the central target of this effort (a maneuver that Dr. Cole's book is at particular pains to shore up). Although forced to acknowledge the appointments of `Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian as Interpreters of Baha'u'llah's Message, every effort has been made to call such authoritative interpretation into question wherever it presents a problem for the notions being promoted. Similarly, although ostensibly acknowledging that the Universal House of Justice is Head of the Baha'i Faith today, this opposition has tried by every means possible to undermine the broad authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's own words and emphasized in the Master's Will and Testament. (In Dr. Cole's book, this agenda makes its appearance in the conclusion: namely, that the Faith founded by Baha'u'llah has failed in its mission because, like "the Khomeinist state in Iran", it has been somehow captured by "fundamentalists", by which term Dr. Cole has repeatedly characterized the members of the Universal House of Justice.) Why would a Baha'i or a Baha'i publisher who is genuinely devoted to advancing Baha'i scholarship and to encouraging confirmation of believers in Baha'u'llah's Covenant seek to persuade his Baha'i readers that a device intended as the mainspring of an attack on their Faith is "an indispensable book for any serious student of Baha'i history"? How could an effort to represent to the Baha'i community such a work as "a brilliant, scholarly analysis of the life and teachings of Baha'u'llah" serve the Cause of God? What moral benefit do you imagine a Baha'i reader could conceivably derive from taking seriously the theories of an individual whose apparently ungovernable malice has made his activities the focal point of contention and disharmony among any believers unwise enough to be influenced by him? Indeed, what relevance do Dr. Cole's academic credentials, so strongly emphasized in your letter of 8 May, have to the moral and spiritual issue raised in the letter from the National Spiritual Assembly? Clearly, no reader, Baha'i or otherwise, would be interested in reading a supposedly scholarly study whose author lacked the relevant scholarly qualifications. Nor, presumably, would any publisher, Baha'i or otherwise, promote a work from such an unqualified source. It is both meaningless and disingenuous to argue that these qualifications, however valid in themselves, assure that a publication meets the moral and spiritual standards that are made explicitly clear in the Writings of the Faith whose interests VVVVV's activities are ostensibly designed to serve. The assumption of Baha'i institutions is that the purpose motivating a group of believers to create a publishing house that enjoys privileged access to the Baha'i community is in order to promote the advancement of the Baha'i Cause. The House of Justice has always assumed -- as is no doubt the case with Baha'is generally -- that this was the desire that motivated you and your associates to create VVVV Press. If some different conception of purpose underlies the VVVVV enterprise, then it is essential that you advise the United States National Spiritual Assembly of the facts of the situation, frankly, unequivocally, and without delay. Mr. XXXXXX 3 August 1999 Page 4 The House of Justice calls on you to meditate profoundly on the questions raised in the foregoing, as these issues bear directly on the relationship that binds you to your Lord. Does not the Master in His Will and Testament itself, specifically warn: "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander, are commanded to show forth peace and amity, are exhorted to rectitude of conduct, straight-forwardness and harmony with all the kindreds and peoples of the world"? Does He not, in that same foundation document of the Cause, counsel all of us: "O ye beloved of the Lord! Strive with all your heart to shield the Cause of God from the onslaught of the insincere, for souls such as these cause the straight to become crooked and all benevolent efforts to produce contrary results"? The impressive services that you have rendered the Faith, with GGGG's loving support, represent for you a spiritual treasure. God forbid that so precious a capital should be squandered. While there is yet time, the House of Justice earnestly appeals to you to turn away from the course on which you have long been set, a course that has been marked by steady spiritual deterioration and that will lead to grievous loss in both this world and the next. As you will recall, because the matter was of direct concern to her, GGGG asked urgently to be included in your discussion with Mr. Birkland and Dr. Mocquais. Because these issues continue to bear so immediately on the well-being of your family, you need to recognize your moral obligation to take her fully into your confidence also on the contents of this present letter. In the past, you have expressed bewilderment that your actions should have required the intervention of senior Baha'i institutions. The House of Justice expects that you have now understood clearly what is at stake and that you will resolve, unambiguously and at once, to abandon the course you have, alas, been pursuing. The House of Justice will pray ardently at the Holy Threshold that you will be granted the courage and will to meet the spiritual challenge you face. With loving Baha'i greetings, Department of the Secretariat From: "Alma Engels" Subject: Re: Cowardice ... Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:30 PM We disagree here. There is a lot of evidence where there is a lack of justice in how things were handled and this has neither been acknowledged by the AO or rectified. BTW I do know of one and only one incidence in the last few years where it was corrected and an apology issued. I could site instances going back to at least the 1980s but I won't for I don't want to start another long thread like the women on the UHJ. None of us know all the facts. And some we can never know. I sometimes wonder if in some of these cases there was lack of Divine Guidance over the action taken because the consultation was faulty. You say there are a 'handful' of complaints. Isn't even one enough if nothing has been done to rectify it? Moreover, I am aware of many more complaints where the wronged party does not want to make it public knowledge. There are also outside indicators that something is wrong. Why can't the Baha'is get many declarations more than 150 years after the start of the Faith. Why is there such a money crunch? And why do you separate the disaffected from the lovers of Baha'u'llah and the lovers of God. This division is correct for two but even there there were things that triggered it. Most, however, believe in God and most of them are still lovers of Baha'u'llah. In peace, Alma Robert Little wrote in message news:9fsa8.17991$dx6.4993490@twister.socal.rr.com... > Alma, this is tantamount to asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" > > First, *handful* of complaints, repeated interminably, with lots of evidence > that the institutions DID handle the situation in the best interests of the > Faith. > > Do you know all the facts about "the many incidents" you talk about? Don't > think so. > > Does the Baha'i administrative order work perfectly. Don't think so. > > But, before you blindly accept the words of the disaffected over the lover, > you might talk to the lover a bit. > > And, why do you feel you have to decide whether or not the complaints are > justified and the administrative order unjustified, or the other way? > > What is your duty, according to Baha'u'llah? > > Robert A. Little > > "Alma Engels" wrote in message > news:Ewoa8.4031$qt6.330436@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > Jay -- I know that I have faults and that saying would be fine if the > > Baha'is were not 'team' members. And if there was real consultation and > > then if the consensus were followed and it didn't work another way would > be > > found to achieve the results. Unfortunately all too often that doesn't > > happen. I am sure you have the many incidents cited here where the > > Administrative Order did not act in the best interests of the Faith and > > nothing was done to correct the situation. Why? > > > > In peace, > > Alma > > Jay Paine wrote in message > > news:u6ju7ttb3mtl67@corp.supernews.com... > > > Alma Engels wrote in message ... > > > The > > > >person who taught me did so online (I think you would recognize the > > name.) > > > >He did a good job but at the end he warned me there were problems. He > > said > > > >not with the Faith but with the Baha'is themselves. I didn't > understand > > > >then but I do now. > > > > > > Me too Alma. > > > > > > I understand now that the Baha'i who gives me the most problems in my > > life, > > > is myself. > > > > > > 66. O EMIGRANTS! > > > > > > The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with > > > detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults > and > > > not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his > > own > > > self better than he knoweth others. > > > > > > (Bahá'u'lláh, The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, p. 45 ) > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > "Me, Myself, I" Joan Armatrading > > > > > > PS. Still getting acquainted with myself. It can take a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Robert, Since I read what these 'disaffected' write in lists, etc., snd not just here, it is possible that I have a better picture of them than you do. There are reasons why they are disaffected. As individuals most of them have had personal experience of ways that the Administrative Order tries to manage and most of them have experienced this in far more detrimental way than I did. Prior to email, email lists, web sites and usenet groups, etc., most thought it was an isolated experience -- something that just happened to that person. Here they have found that this happens to many others and in most parts of the world. You are correct that some have lost belief and love of God. Who knows if they hadn't been tested so severely what they would have done. But the majority still love God and believe that Baha'u'llah was sent from God. And they, like me, try to reconcile this with what is happening in the Faith under the Covenant. I think that we see what we want to see. Thus I find it far more important that the Administrative Order would subtly threaten someone with being declared a CB because of his business enterprise promoted a book the AO disapproved of, then the question of how many copies someone received and why cuts were made. (BTW the cuts were made to protect the receiver of this original email. Most I know like this person and appreciate his occasional remarks in group email. BTW2 -- he was at one time a member of my community, before my time of course, but we have a common friend who has told me about him. As for the enemies within -- I didn't know of the Abdu'l Baha reference I did know that Shoghi Effendi used that term in connection with a post WW2 group of Germans who refused to accept his role after his grandfather died. I think it is being used now out of context. This is getting long so will stop after saying that not all of the disaffected use the same approach (and this is true too of those who are not disaffected). I think anger and name-calling is mostly ineffective. Others don't and use it as a means of making a point. And even more occasionally react too quickly to a message that angers them. Well I stop as my isp has twice tried to disconnect me because of inactivity. In peace, Alma Robert Little wrote in message news:btqa8.17970$dx6.4943693@twister.socal.rr.com... > Dear Alma > > In Stars Of The West, 'Abdu'l-Baha' is quoted as saying that the worst > enemies of the Faith are in the Faith, and call themselves friends. He says > that despite the fact that they break the twin laws of love and unity, they > call themselves friends. He also says that one day "...they will be attacked > with a madness." > > Never allow a mere human being to interfere with your love of God. > > If you think on this, you will perhaps see that every one of these > disaffected have allowed that to happen. God has not hurt them, nor lost > perfection, nor have we humans acquired perfection either, so we hurt each > other from time to time. There will be a reckoning for us all, for all that > we have done, and all that we have not done. > > Hmm, I'd better pray. > > Robert A. Little > > "Alma Engels" wrote in message > news:UY4a8.862$P21.96370@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > Robert, I am with you. But we have to remember that we are human and > > sometimes do things in anger. I have seen backbiting and ad hominums from > > those I call liberal and those I call conservative. When the reaction is > > angry, and engages in name calling, I think it hurts the sender of the > > message more than it hurts the object of the anger. 'Doctor Electron' > comes > > to mind. S/he might have some valid points but they are lost in the vile, > > bitter verbiage. > > > > BTW what do you think of the Administrative Order backbiting? There are > > incidents of that. And do you consider it backbiting if no names are used > > but it is obvious who is being talked about? > > > > It is a strange world -- one I didn't expect when I became a Baha'i. The > > person who taught me did so online (I think you would recognize the name.) > > He did a good job but at the end he warned me there were problems. He > said > > not with the Faith but with the Baha'is themselves. I didn't understand > > then but I do now. > > > > In peace and to a better tomorrow. > > Alma > > Robert Little wrote in message > > news:crI98.3449$o%6.2342688@twister.socal.rr.com... > > > Hi Alma > > > > > > I concur, agree and stand behind your hope for unity. > > > > > > We can agree, I therefore assume, that anyone who shares that desire > will > > of > > > course heneceforth refrain from ad hominum attacks, backbiting, verbal > > > abuse, rumormongering and the like. They will strive to achieve both the > > > search for truth, and an increase in love amongst all they come in > contact > > > with. They will prayerfully respond, even if what they are responding to > > is > > > mean spirited. > > > > > > Let's see where this goes, eh? > > > > > > Robert A. Little > > > > > > "Alma Engels" wrote in message > > > news:hxC98.25539$Hb6.2332049@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > You are preaching to the choir, Doctored. Those you mention have been > > > > posting here for a long time and have a conservative, fundamentalist > > > > understanding of the Faith -- which is ok. Those you don't mention on > > the > > > > other hand are the more liberal Baha'is and assorted friends. > Wouldn't > > it > > > > be hunky dory if all could get along together -- unity in diversity, > you > > > > know. But rather I think it represents the biblical Tower of Babal > for > > > the > > > > very words have different meanings, depending on who is speaking. > > > > > > > > In peace, > > > > Alma who does not hide behind an alias though her account is named > > Aelyria > > > > or Thirinel depending how she is replying. Those names go back a > dozen > > > > years to my online role-playing days. > > > > Doctor Electron wrote in message > > > > news:gbmd6ugff8f2giecpdp1squ9ra10lc8vu9@4ax.com... > > > > > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, Pat Kohli > > > > > transmitted: > > > > > > > > > > >Allahu Abha! > > > > > > > > > > > >Doctor Electron wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It's almost like this was some sort of deliberate act of > martyrdom > > > for > > > > > >> some (unknown) principle. > > > > > > > > > > > >I have been asking him to come by and explain the matter. I am > > unhappy > > > > > >with his explanation, but my inistence on an explanation arose from > > my > > > > > >discovery of contradictions. Though I suspect Juan may be unable > to > > > > > >provide an explanation to my satisfaction, I would like to > favorably > > > > > >acknowledge the fact that he has appeared, even after these several > > > > > >months. It is better, in my eyes, than never appearing. > > > > > > > > > > > >Though I am angered by what he did, his presence here for a few > days > > > may > > > > > >aid me in accepting his behavior in October, and helping me to > > restore > > > my > > > > > >sense of balance. So, even though you may be disturbed by his > > > > appearance, > > > > > >I see it as a positive sign. > > > > > > > > > > > >Blessings! > > > > > >- Pat > > > > > >kohli@ameritel.net > > > > > > > > > > Glad to hear it. And I see from posts by many -- Robert, Brian, > Rick, > > > > > Dave, yourself -- that you have already begun to analyze and respond > > > > > to the content of Dr. Cole's missives and that many are more able > than > > > > > myself to do so, with the pertinent information at hand and with > > > > > highly relevant angles or perspectives on this story. > > > > > > > > > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > > > > > > > > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > > > > > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Baloney. Though I do agree Juan was intemperate in his choice of words. He was mad. If I remember correctly you have been known to post when mad too. Such is the fraility of humans. I agree that leaving Fred alone won't shut him up. But neither is jumping on his back going to make him shut. And jumping on his back draws attention to him. For instance, I don't killfile anyone but neither do I read all the posts. And I ignore Freds unless there is a reply to it. Then I do read it. And Pat proved nothing with his posts. He, like you, missed the main point that something was wrong in the AO. I don't expect either of you to change your near-sighted focus. I have seen so many posts from about how we need to consult and refer things up the adminisrative ladder with the same quotes that I merely skim your posts much of the time. This reminds me of another children's story about the emperor's new clothes. Everyone praised him though he wore nothing because they thought that only the good could see the clothes and they weren't about to be called not good. It took a small voice from a child to state the obvious. I can understand that you probably think similar things about me and others posting here. The real problem is that we cannot fragment the Faith as Christians have Christianity, for instance. So we need to learn how to get along despite our different interpretations. I see little progress here. Alma Dave Fiorito wrote in message news:f0853486.0202130908.9d0aa93@posting.google.com... > Alama, > > > Or we can leave Fred alone. We should accept even if we don't imitate those > > who follow Baha'u'llah. I know of a Baha'i in my community who thought that > > consultation should have a leader - him. What the assembly did was set up a > > time for him to hold consultation. Nobody came. But noone tried to make > > him leave the Faith. > > Fred left alone is not going to stop the inflamatory spamage. Nor is > it going to stop him from dragging others into the fray. > > > Actually Juan Cole engages in conversations with others over what he writes > > all the time. And people often disagree with him. Sometimes they have more > > information and he is glad to get it. What was happening here was the > > villianization of Juan Cole with vile name calling and misrepresenting his > > position. I wouldn't accept that either. His way of replying is not mine. > > But that doesn't matter. > > Look - Pat pointed out that Juan's entire condemnation was based on > _nothing_. Juan was heaping condemnation on an institution with no > evidence of wrong doing. In fact the evidence that was presented had > nothing at all to do with that institution. Juan blew it, but rather > than apologize he compounded the problem by insulting Pat and > insisting that he was blameless. > > Come on Alma - Juan is just being vidictive. The posts he has > produced on this topic are far from accurate and even further from > civil. > > > > As I posted elsewhere this whole business reminds me of the childrens game > > of 'pin the tail on the donkey' only it is 'pin the tail on the devil'. If > > you will call the children's game -- the donkey was highly stylized and > > didn't much resemble a real donkey. It was also tailless. And the picture > > and game was supplied by someone, generally an adult. The players were > > blindfolded and pinned the tail in rather odd places. Draw your own > > parallels with what is happening here. > > > There aren't any that I can see. Juan is not some innocent victim. > This is a reaction to a wrong that he has deliberately perpetrated. I > think Pat saw through his blindfold and pinned the tail right where it > belongs. > > Cheers, > > Dave > From: "John R MacLeod" Subject: re asking for donations Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:03 PM > > Baha'u'llah is obviously referring to the fact that He personally isn't trying > to get rich off of people. It has nothing to do with fund raising. I think if you read the quote more carefully you'll find it has little to do with getting rich. Baha'u'llah is emphasising that he did not even mention let alone ask for donations even when He and His entourage desperately needed them. It is true that He is referring to Himself rather than the Baha'i Faith but was there much difference between the two at the time? Also it is soliciting 'in the name of the one true God'. There really is nothing in the quote to say that Baha'u'llah would find an organisation soliciting 'in the name of the one true God' any more acceptable. Personally, I would have thought the Faith as an organisation would want to follow the example of it's Founder on this and never solicit funds, which is indeed what I understand the rule is. I thought it was one of our proud boasts that nobody was ever directly asked for contributions. I'm not sure I agree with Alma that providing an envelope is actually crossing the boundary but on the whole I think we as a Faith should err on the side of caution because one thing that is sure is that anyone who feels pressured about money is going to feel alienated from the Faith and that is surely more important than money. By the way, I know the quotes from Baha'u'llah about Huquq; I know the quotes referring to zakat (spelling?), but the one I quoted here is the only one I know which refers to voluntary donations. Do you know any others? Let us hope that the UHJ clarify the zakat soon and we can all revert to a sensible donation pattern based on a clear rule . One thing I can tell from personal experience. I know at least one person who, having become a Baha'i made a reasonably generous arrangement for regular payments and cancelled it after the first begging letter. I wonder if in the longer term the incessant financial appeals actually work. From: "John R MacLeod" Subject: re asking for donations Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:03 PM > > Baha'u'llah is obviously referring to the fact that He personally isn't trying > to get rich off of people. It has nothing to do with fund raising. I think if you read the quote more carefully you'll find it has little to do with getting rich. Baha'u'llah is emphasising that he did not even mention let alone ask for donations even when He and His entourage desperately needed them. It is true that He is referring to Himself rather than the Baha'i Faith but was there much difference between the two at the time? Also it is soliciting 'in the name of the one true God'. There really is nothing in the quote to say that Baha'u'llah would find an organisation soliciting 'in the name of the one true God' any more acceptable. Personally, I would have thought the Faith as an organisation would want to follow the example of it's Founder on this and never solicit funds, which is indeed what I understand the rule is. I thought it was one of our proud boasts that nobody was ever directly asked for contributions. I'm not sure I agree with Alma that providing an envelope is actually crossing the boundary but on the whole I think we as a Faith should err on the side of caution because one thing that is sure is that anyone who feels pressured about money is going to feel alienated from the Faith and that is surely more important than money. By the way, I know the quotes from Baha'u'llah about Huquq; I know the quotes referring to zakat (spelling?), but the one I quoted here is the only one I know which refers to voluntary donations. Do you know any others? Let us hope that the UHJ clarify the zakat soon and we can all revert to a sensible donation pattern based on a clear rule . One thing I can tell from personal experience. I know at least one person who, having become a Baha'i made a reasonably generous arrangement for regular payments and cancelled it after the first begging letter. I wonder if in the longer term the incessant financial appeals actually work. From: "Giangiacomo" Subject: Faith Hate Crime Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:59 PM In a thread on *Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida* a certain Doctor Electron recently mentioned: *explicit and veiled threats by apparently unbalanced people already clearly supporting faith hate activities* Perhaps he was talking about this earlier example of an individual whom he may consider an unbalanced person indulging in what he may call 'faith hate crime': "Each time that Most Mighty Instrument hath come, and that Light shone forth from the Ancient Dayspring, He was withheld by ignorant physicians who, even as clouds, interposed themselves between Him and the world. It failed therefore, to recover, and its sickness hath persisted until this day. They indeed were powerless to protect it, or to effect a cure, whilst He Who hath been the Manifestation of Power amongst men was withheld from achieving His purpose, by reason of what the hands of the ignorant physicians have wrought." For is not Dr Cole accused of loudly voicing his fears that the current leaders of the Baha'i Faith are behaving in ways that are unmistakably those of the ignorant physicians of the past? And are not Dr Cole and his friends accused of fomenting discord? Our Witness continues: "Consider these days in which He Who is the Ancient Beauty hath come in the Most Great Name, that He may quicken the world and unite its peoples. They, however, rose up against Him with sharpened swords, and committed that which caused the Faithful Spirit to lament, until in the end they imprisoned Him in the most desolate of cities, and broke the grasp of the faithful upon the hem of His robe. Were anyone to tell them: `The World Reformer is come,' they would answer and say: `Indeed it is proven that He is a fomenter of discord!'..." And perhaps Doctor Electron (as indeed all parties to these disputes) should instead remember the admonition of the Wronged One he professes to follow: "Revile ye not one another. We, verily, have come to unite and weld together all that dwell on earth. Unto this beareth witness what the ocean of Mine utterance hath revealed amongst men, and yet most of the people have gone astray. If anyone revile you, or trouble touch you, in the path of God, be patient, and put your trust in Him Who heareth, Who seeth. He, in truth, witnesseth, and perceiveth, and doeth what He pleaseth, through the power of His sovereignty. He, verily, is the Lord of strength, and of might. In the Book of God, the Mighty, the Great, ye have been forbidden to engage in contention and conflict." It is true, we have sinned on all sides. But does Dr Electron really expect those whom he considers the enemies of his Faith to set a shining example and show him every kindness, while he who follows the true teachings growls like the son of a wolf? Perhaps he should consider the imminent danger of he and his companions repeating the errors of the past. Our Witness warns: "O Hádí! Suffer not thyself to become the instrument for the dissemination of new superstitions, and refuse to set up once again a sect similar to that of the Shí'ihs. Reflect how great the amount of blood which hath been spilt. Thou amongst others, who hast laid claim to knowledge, and likewise the Shí'ih divines, have, one and all, in the first and ensuing years, cursed the True One, and decreed that His most holy blood be shed. Fear God, O Hádí! Be not willing that men be again afflicted with the vain imaginings of former times." "The dissemination of new superstitions" - isn't that what we see is happening? "A sect similar to that of the Shí'ihs" - isn't that what we fear the Baha'i Faith is becoming? "The vain imaginings of former times" - isn't that the black cloud we see descending on the luminous Faith of God? O Electron! Beware that you do not betray your Beloved in your fanatical devotion to His cause!Desist from your dangerous folly! A Grand Inquisitor can curse the True One while still whispering His name, can oppress His loved ones while still singing His praises, can persecute His children while still mouthing the syllables of His Most Holy Book. And what awful judgement awaits the Inquisitor in this world or the next? ------------------------- Oh dear, I've done it again: more 'explicit and veiled threats by apparently unbalanced people already clearly supporting faith hate activities'. I should never have opened those Holy Books ;-) Wishing you all infinite illuminations, Your humble servant, Giangiacomo il Guercio Knight Bannaret of the Order of the Inner Light From: "Giangiacomo" Subject: Re: Faith Hate Crime Date: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:01 PM Dear Susan, > Hmmm. And Juan Cole thinks he's the Good Doctor? Sorry, I'm afraid I don't know what Juan thinks of himself. I haven't developed telepathy yet. I can only give you my opinion. Juan Cole is a very nice man who has been treated very badly by people he once trusted, and by an organisation to which he devoted the best part of his youth. I also recognize that he's quite an impulsive person and I find his tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions more than a little disconcerting, but I don't think that's a characteristic of his published work. We all say dumb things from time to time on these forums, and Juan has never claimed to be infallible anyway. He also has a mischievous sense of humour, which not everybody seems to appreciate. > >"Revile ye not one another. We, verily, have come to unite > >and weld together all that dwell on earth. > > You mean like this Dr. Cole describing Dr. Kazemzadeh as "a world-historical > ingrate" and "hypocrite"? ... Or how about comments like this? > " I am tired of having my community run like a fucking Mafia > and I'm mad as hell and I am not taking it any more." > "Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because > they are tinpot dictators." What did Baha'u'llah say about the leaders of religion, the mullahs of Persia, the people who were persecuting him? Was Juan Cole not driven out of the Faith by the above-named people or people like them for expressing opinions of which they didn't approve? I don't like the lapse into bad language but I can understand the feelings. Can't you? I think the first and last comments can be understood in view of the one in the middle. That's a subjective impression. Yours may be different. But Juan has a right to feel what he feels and to express what he believes. And we all have duty to understand why he feels that way and what we can do to help him feel better. I'll try looking at it from your point of view, which is also the perspective of the people with the power in your religion. There is a problem with this Dr Cole who has somehow got the idea that we are evil and corrupt. What do we do? Do we go and threaten him with all sorts of nasty consequences if he doesn't shut up (the spiritually blind solution)? Or do we take counsel with him, which actually means listening to him until we can understand what he is saying and how he has acquired this distorted idea of us and then humbly explain ourselves to him (the spiritually enlightened solution)? And I'm not talking specifically about Dr Cole here, as if he were someone special who merited any more attention than anyone else. I often think of Gandhi and the story of how he heard that some English official had sworn to shoot him the next time he had the chance. So the next morning Gandhi got up early and walked the several miles to the man's house, knocked on the door and said "I've heard that you have sworn to kill me so I have come here to make things easier for you. But before you shoot me I would like you to explain to me what I have done to you to make you hate me so much". And the two men talked for many hours and became the best of friends. (As far as I can remember - I read the story years ago). Now that's spiritual strength. That's the kind of sign of spiritual understanding we are waiting to see from the men of the Universal House of Justice. But what do we get? Just an endless string of symbolic fatwas, it seems to me. Or should that be takfir(s)? [snipped other examples of Dr Cole's angry buzzing] > This is the kind of reviling you were talking about wasn't it? Or perhaps it is > just what the House described as 'ungovernable malice." Or maybe just paranoid > delusions. No, I think we all have a right and duty to oppose religious obscurantism, even when it's only in an embryonic form. You carefully avoided addressing the question of the failure of your religious leadership to heal the ills of the world, and have ignored Baha'u'llah's command that you should 'refuse to set up once again a sect similar to that of the Shí'ihs'. And you seem not to have noticed that the main point of my message was that it is up to the party that considers itself more spiritually healthy to make peace: 'If anyone revile you, or trouble touch you, in the path of God, be patient, and put your trust in Him Who heareth, Who seeth.' I can't see any 'ungovernable malice' in honestly feeling that the Baha'i Faith is losing its way and is no longer the light of the world, whereas I do get a strong sense of ungovernable malice in Dr Electron's crusade to drum Dr Cole out of his job. A despicable development worthy of the most ignorant physicians of Iran's recent past, which I hope you will join me in publicly condemning in the most emphatic terms. Best wishes, Giangiacomo A Baha'i who was often on the Far Right spectrum of things -- like the position articulated by the various online Baha'i Fundamentalists, which itself is a reflection of the Fundamentalist Ideology of the current Baha'i authorities --, has recently resigned from the Baha'i faith due primarily because as a scientist he can no longer accept the positions laid out by 1) `Abdu'l-Baha on the question of evolution and 2) that `Abdu'l-Baha's pronouncements on such questions are to be taken as infallible in all respects without question. Below is a copy of his correspondence with the Baha'i Universal House of Justice regarding the matter. It would seem that when religious faith gets stuck with the material and theoretical evidence proving religious hypotheses on scientific questions such as evolution wrong, the believer whose formerly blind faith has now been shattered by his findings is left with two choices by religious authorities: 1) accept the pronouncements of scripture blindly and unequivocally regardless of scientific findings or 2) leave! -- Freethought110 Message: 3 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:26:33 -0500 From: Juan Cole To: Subject: Letters to the Editor - March 1, 2002 - A Response to Baha'i Ad Date: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:36 AM Letters to the Editor Wayne Peal Clarion-Eccentric 400 Water St., #203 Rochester, MI 48307 wpeal@oe.homecomm.net In response to the paid half-page ad by my fellow Baha'is in your February 28 issue, which offers a website link "for more information," I believe Professor Juan Cole, of the University of Michigan's Department of History, has a webpage of extensive and disturbing documentation that anyone interested in the Baha'i Faith should be aware of: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhdoc.htm In his book Modernity and the Millennium, published by Columbia University Press in 1998, Professor Cole observes the Baha'i administration has increasingly come under the control of fundamentalists, "stressing scriptural literalism . . . theocracy, censorship, intellectual intolerance, and denying key democratic values (196)." For numerous other views in balance to the paid ad O&E ran, I also recommend the over 50 megabytes of documentation on my own website, The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/ Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills 668 Bolinger Rochester Hills, MI 48307 248-608-6424 fglaysher@comcast.net Appeared in O & E ½ page ad on February 28, 2002: ---- The Destiny of America and the Promise of World Peace A Statement from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'í of the United States At this time of world turmoil, the United States Bahá'í community offers a perspective on the destiny of America as the promoter of world peace. More than a hundred years ago, Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, addressing heads of state, proclaimed that the age of maturity for the entire human race had come. The unity of humankind was now to be established as the foundation of the great peace that would mark the highest stage in humanity's spiritual and social evolution. Revolutionary and world-shaking changes were therefore inevitable. The Bahá'í writings state: The world is moving on. Its events are unfolding ominously and with bewildering rapidity. The whirlwind of its passions is swift and alarmingly violent. The New World is insensibly drawn into its vortex. . . . Dangers, undreamt of and unpredictable, threaten it both from within and from without. Its governments and peoples are being gradually enmeshed in the coils of the world's recurrent crises and fierce controversies. . . . The world is contracting into a neighborhood. America, willingly or unwillingly, must face and grapple with this new situation. For purposes of national security, let alone any humanitarian motive, she must assume the obligations imposed by this newly created neighborhood. Paradoxical as it may seem, her only hope of extricating herself from the perils gathering around her is to become entangled in that very web of international association which the Hand of an inscrutable Providence is weaving. The American nation, Bahá'ís believe, will evolve through tests and trials to become a land of spiritual distinction and leadership, a champion of justice and unity among all peoples and nations, and a powerful servant of the cause of everlasting peace. This is the peace promised by God in the sacred texts of the world's religions. Establishing peace is not simply a matter of signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex task requiring a new level of commitment to resolving issues not customarily associated with the pursuit of peace. Universal acceptance of the spiritual principle of the oneness of humankind is essential to any successful attempt to establish world peace. Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent evils, is a major barrier to peace. The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality of the sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged, prerequisites of peace. The inordinate disparity between rich and poor keeps the world in a state of instability, preventing the achievement of peace. Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Religious strife, the cause of innumerable wars and conflicts throughout history, is a major obstacle to progress. The challenge facing the world's religious leaders is to contemplate, with hearts filled with compassion and the desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they cannot, in humility before their God, submerge their theological differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace. Bahá'ís pray, "May this American Democracy be the first nation to establish the foundation of international agreement. May it be the first nation to proclaim the unity of mankind. May it be the first to unfurl the standard of the Most Great Peace." During this hour of crisis, we affirm our abiding faith in the destiny of America. We know that the road to its destiny is long, thorny and tortuous, but we are confident that America will emerge from her trials undivided and undefeatable. —National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States For more information and for a free copy of the booklet "The Promise of World Peace" please visit our web site at Www.us.bahai.org or call us toll free at 1-800-22-UNITE Local Phone 248-737-4006 -- http://www.us.bahai.org/world_peace/amers_destiny.html From: "Larry Rowe" Subject: Re: General question about Fred G. and the like... Date: Saturday, March 02, 2002 6:44 AM Hello all , The Universal House of Justice is wrong when it breaches the following keynote of the Cause of God in its interactions with believers . "Lets us bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship , not arbitrary power , but the spirit of frank and loving consultation ."~Shoghi Effendi~ That the Universal House of Justice has breached this keynote of the Cause of God is clear to all who have looked into their treatment of Alison Marshall concerning her removal from Bahai' membership . They have behaved in a very unBaha'i like manner and instead of "humble fellowship" they used "dictatorial authority" instead of "frank and loving consultation" they used arbitrary power . Infallibilty means never having to say your sorry . The thesis of the infallibilty of the Universal House of Justice needs to be examined . Yours Larry Rowe From: "John R MacLeod" Subject: Re: General question about Fred G. and the like... Date: Saturday, March 02, 2002 6:34 AM "Mavaddat" wrote in message news:GQUf8.27419$0C1.2269744@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > I don't understand one thing about the movement which Fred Glaysher The movement which Fred considers he belongs to is the Baha'i Faith. The US Baha'i authorities apparently disagree but there is no other movement involved. > and the > people who support him are a part of... I don't believe Fred has or would want to have a personal following. I agree with him about some things and disagree with him about others and I would imagine that is typical. > I assume that Fred believes in > (follows) at least Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. I believe so, though Fred is one of the very view people on this newsgroup (or in the Faith for that matter) honest enough to admit when he has doubts. He posted here once wondering aloud whether the evil he sees in current practices might actually represent evil in the teachings of the Founders. His 'in your face' honesty is one of the most refreshing things about this newsgroup. > It is not possible, or at > least I can't think of a way it could be, that a person would consider > themselves a Bahá'í and not believe in (accept) Bahá'u'lláh. It is possible to be a follower of someone without believing that person to be always right. I don't think that applies to Fred but I know others who take that view. You might like to consider whether a 'Marxist' for instance would be prepared to disagree with Marx. Now as far as I know the vast majority of people who consider themselves Baha'is would not disagree with Baha'u'llah but there are always exceptions and I believe we should respect their different viewpoints. >Although, I > guess it could be (logically) possible that a person quote the source of a > theology to support an argument, and not believe in that theology. > > Irregardless, here is the second premise to my question: > If a person believes in Bahá'u'lláh, then he or she must, by virtue of > Bahá'u'lláh's own Will and Testament (Kitáb-i-Ahd), also follow (obey) every > ordinance and guidance of 'Abdu'l-Bahá regarding the Faith. That is the common understanding but not the only one. For example it is possible to believe that Abdul Baha was given authority but for His lifetime only. I'm also not sure that Baha'u'llah uses the term 'obey' in relation to Abdul Baha though in my view it is implied. > If a person > obeys 'Abdu'l-Bahá, then, it follows that he or she also believes that there > needs to exist the institution of the Universal House of Justice (and other > Houses of Justice); I believe the Houses of Justice are based on Baha'u'llah's own writings not Abdul Baha's. > also, such a person would acknowledge Shoghi Effendi as > the Guardian of the Faith As a historical fact that was what he was known as and appointed as. However it is worth noting that he never actually functioned as a Guardian in terms of the way the role is defined in the Will and Testament. In fact, I can't see any significant difference in the roles Shoghi and Abdul Baha actually performed. >and as the one who worked so hard to bring about > this divine Institution by establishing the necessary NSA's to elect its > members. > > So now my question. What exactly is the ultimate goal of the Religious > Freedom of Conscience? What I mean is, they must support the UHJ as an > institution if they are Bahá'ís, so it would be illogical that they are > simply trying to prove the UHJ wrong. I believe Fred's goal is to draw attention to what he sees as abuses within the Faith. He probably thinks that if they are publicly aknowledged they will eventually be fixed. He has stated publicly many times (Fred states everything many times) that the UHJ is the legitimate Head of the Faith but disagrees with the current policies and wants them changed. > > (Let it be known that (the only reason) I am posting this because I can not > understand the position of Fred and his supporters.) I am glad to see you making the effort to understand Fred's position. The more we understand the more we love. > > From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE -WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE -WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - Date: Monday, March 04, 2002 7:14 PM Dear Brian Your message is such excellent proof of the original point-- that trb is a psychological war zone, that I will delurk to remark on it. "Brian F. Walker" wrote in message news:... > I am sorry I ruined your morning, That's not believable in light of the further insults and aggression you heap on me below. and I am also sorry you feel compelled to > withdraw from the discussion. Compelled is not the word. Abused, insulted and harassed are the words. How odd, and yet how perfect, that you should go so over the top in being abusive to someone who posted here only to say that yes indeed, "true Baha'is" can be warlike! > > > > That is precisely what is said, about Mike, Alison, and many others, > > by the AO, without calling them covenant-breakers. But you know this, > > why make me repeat the obvious? > > Again, no Paul. That is not what Anon said, nor is it what Anon meant. How do you know? "There are only Baha'is and non-Baha'is, and not more than one kind of Baha'i" is precisely the formulation that has been used precisely as I state it above. Th is is an example of you putting your agenda on top of another missive and > compounding it into one composite whole. Later you ask what my agenda is. Here, you presume to know that I have one. Did Juan take lessons from you, o > vice versa? Purely abusive and insulting, se