From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 6:56 AM Subject: srb censored 6-29-98 -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam >Dear Mr. Hyman, > >Since I see you posting here, I take the opportunity to ask you >why my post about `Abdu'l Baha's prophecy about religions being >unified in the twentieth century (a prophecy which you strongly >asserted did not exist, in a previous and quite unfriendly >message to me) was never posted on s.r.b. And why was I never >notified of any reason for its nonappearance? And why when I >wrote again asking for an explanation, and Michele Smith said she >had no idea what had happened but would forward the question to >the moderator on duty at the time, there was *still* no >explanation. Fred, who goes out of his way to be aggressive and >name-calling with you, at least gets the courtesy of a rejection >letter. I, who have gone out of my way not to reciprocate the >hostile tone you have taken with me, do not. What gives? > >Sincerely, >Paul Johnson > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 7:03 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: srb posters express thanks In my mailbox this morning: >This relatively new (one year) Baha'i couple, asking many of the same >questions you and others have raised, just found the SRB site which led us >to your Freedom of Conscience site. Bravo! Please put us on your mailing >list: [name & address deleted] We, too, have >discovered that "the Emperor has no clothes", and believe it's time for >some hard, honest, challenging discussion and reassessment. > >Our over-riding concern is, what now? Do we, like so many others, just >completely walk away from the Baha'i faith -- do we throw out all the >writings, all the potential the Baha'i faith has to offer, and passively >watch an authoritarian bureaucracy flush the whole thing down the tubes? >In view of the unbreakable, if not infallible, choke-hold the >administration has over the minds of its followers, is there any reasonable >hope of accomplishing anything from within -- or will we probably just get >thrown out of the club with the rest of the naysayers? Have any (other than >the infamous Orthodox Bahai "Covenant Breakers") ever considered creating a >new group based on, or at least incorporating, the Baha'i writings? It all >just seems a darned shame. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 7:03 AM Subject: Re: srb posters express thanks In my mailbox this morning: >This relatively new (one year) Baha'i couple, asking many of the same >questions you and others have raised, just found the SRB site which led us >to your Freedom of Conscience site. Bravo! Please put us on your mailing >list: [name & address deleted] We, too, have >discovered that "the Emperor has no clothes", and believe it's time for >some hard, honest, challenging discussion and reassessment. > >Our over-riding concern is, what now? Do we, like so many others, just >completely walk away from the Baha'i faith -- do we throw out all the >writings, all the potential the Baha'i faith has to offer, and passively >watch an authoritarian bureaucracy flush the whole thing down the tubes? >In view of the unbreakable, if not infallible, choke-hold the >administration has over the minds of its followers, is there any reasonable >hope of accomplishing anything from within -- or will we probably just get >thrown out of the club with the rest of the naysayers? Have any (other than >the infamous Orthodox Bahai "Covenant Breakers") ever considered creating a >new group based on, or at least incorporating, the Baha'i writings? It all >just seems a darned shame. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 7:05 AM To: newdeal@worldnet.att.com Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com You can subscribe either through the web site or email, whichever you prefer. Addresses are below. Welcome! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 7:12 AM Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson Re: Freedom of Choice I don't see this on my server so I'm posting it; hope it's not a repeat: -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice >In article <6n2m1o$bgm@news3.newsguy.com> you wrote: >: YU ZIR wrote in message <14246-35941FDA-5@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... >: >: In Fred's case I speculate, (since it happened to me), the milk went >: sour early on in the interchanges with SRB, and particularly with Bill >: H. > >This seems plausible. I've never seen any outright obnoxious, hostile >behavior from any other moderator. But have yet to see anything >*but* that from this one. > > In my case, my attempts to ameliorate the hostility that I sensed >: from Bill H were, as I perceived it, rebuffed by him. > >Amen again, and worse, his aggressiveness escalated despite my >not mirroring it. > > No problem for >: me. My response was simple and effective: to walk away from SRB and >: post on ARB. > >Simple, yes. Effective, no, since ARB is read by one percent the number >who have access to SRB. >: >: My personal impression of SRB is that it is in the hands of cadre >: loyalists who can be adequately defended on the technical letter of the >: law, > >Not Bill H. in the case of throwing away a post and never writing >to the author, nor in the case of refusing an explanation when >one was requested. > > but who really do as much as they can get away with to discourage >: those of us who make cogent arguments they don't like. > >Sounds absolutely true. The cogency of my argument was just too >much for him, in light of his earlier denial that any such passage >as the one I was discussing could possibly exist. >: >: That would >: cause me discomfort if an organization I belong to did that. >: If you're comfortable with SRB, support it. Just don't cross >: them. > >Which doesn't even mean confronting them, or being unpleasant, >or attacking the Faith. All it means is politely, cogently, >and informatively raising an issue they don't want raised. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 7:32 AM To: Emma Pease Subject: Re: emailing soc.religion.bahai posters Emma, I'm not going to bulk email srb posters though I don't really see anything wrong with it. I have directly emailed about 75 people with single messages. I don't understand how that could possibly be considered bulk mail. It's one message at a time. What alternative do I have? Srb has done everything possible to prevent people from even hearing about the talk.religion.bahai proposal before and during each of the past votes. For that reason, I don't believe the last vote was fair, and just enough Bahais voted no along with about 10 to 20 no's with apparently newly created addresses and no records of posting on dejanews to create suspicion of their authenticity in my opinion. Frankly, I don't see why tripod or hotmail should care. Srb is exploiting the letter of the law and every other advantage it can to prevent an unmoderated newsgroup. Why people don't care about that is beyond me. If you or anyone would glance at the documents now on my web site, it should become apparent that this kind of censorship has been going on for well over a decade in the Bahai Faith.... I'd welcome any suggestions.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 7:45 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Introduction >I live in Germany (in a town near Frankfurt) . Most of my intimate friends >are pagans or don't even belong to any religions. >And I hope to find open-minded and challenging persons and opinions on this >list, that will aid me in my spiritual growing process. > >With loving Bahaii greetings >Petra Welcome. You might find some of the messages from Michael McKenny on my web site of interest if you're not aware of that situation.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 8:20 AM To: Emma Pease Subject: Re: emailing soc.religion.bahai posters -----Original Message----- From: Emma Pease To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 12:39 PM Subject: Re: emailing soc.religion.bahai posters > >Frederick, > >Upon your head be it; I think that you are playing right into your >opponents' hands. Unless you individually tailor each message as a >reply to each poster's message (i.e., seriously comment upon and/or >reply to the contents of the message), include the pointers only in >your signature, and send only one message per person you can probably >be gotten for unsolicited bulk email. Even then they might get you >(or you might collapse from exhaustion). I don't have any choice. Srb has closed off all access to Bahais who would care and vote YES. You might want to glance at the several thank you notes I've received from the first batch of srb posters. THEY were happy to hear about my web page and mailing list. I'll do all of the above. It seems wiser than the same form letter that I've sent so far. Thanks for mentioning it. >I should point out that in the last poll the vote was 109:65. >The no's were a tad on the high side but 109 yes votes is too low to >pass even the most non-controversial of groups nowadays. It's low because the moderators prevented any discussion about talk.religion.bahai on srb and there was no way of staying in touch with interested people. With the mailing list and web site, that should change. 10 to 15 NO's were dubious at best. If you check the addresses on dejanews, you'll discovery they were newly created addresses for the purpose of voting NO or at least we can say with certainty the individual has never posted to Usenet until just a few days before the interest poll.... > >My suggestions > >1. At a minimum find someone else to be co-proponent with you in the >next round. Ideally you should find a group of people willing to work >together to get the proposal passed (I assume the mailing list you are >running or a subset thereof can be this group). People will take you >more seriously if it is obvious a fair number of people are with you. A group is a good idea. I'll start working on that soon. > >2. Consult with them before doing anything. You have often been your >own worst enemy; checking with the group might cause a few less public >relations disasters. Yes, you're right, I admit it. Often, though, Bahais have made me out to be worse than I am, and techies have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.... A group is a good idea.... >3. Wait until late September before starting the RFD. That way people >are back in school but it is early enough that the CFV can be run >before the winter break. August 28th ends the 6 month waiting period. I know it will take at least three to four weeks to discuss the proposal and submit Questionnarie for the CFV and wait in the queue. It should work out about right for late September. Otherwise, you're really suggesting late October. > >4. Cut the signature down to four lines (don't give them the ability >to refuse postings because of excessively long signature lines). They want two lines and no reference to either my web site or mailing list.... >Something like > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience (plus mailing list): > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >See also newsgroups, alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc, for >unfettered discussion. > >5. Be careful about who offers to help. Not all groups claiming to be >for religious freedom are really for religious freedom for everyone. This I indeed know. Do you have someone specifically in mind? >6. Limit the number of your postings. One or two postings carefully >presented are far more potent than 20 and are more likely to be read. >Nothing says you can't reply to several posts in one message. It's always a problem because so manny different people are posting attacks against talk.religion.bahai, and there are few defenders, or those who are lack the necessary commitment to keep at it every day.... I'll try, though, to be more concise and limit the number of posts more. >7. Remember Rome wasn't built in a day. After a year and a half, boy, do I know that! > > >As far as unsolicited bulk email: > >Hotmail cares because it's system has often been abused by junk >emailers as a place for their drop boxes; so much so that some sites >refuse to accept email from people with hotmail.com return addresses. > >Tripod cares because junk emailers have used them in the past for web >sites detailing their products. > >I know both will can bulk emailers; I have seen them do it. In the event, I'll just have to switch providers.... But I intend to follow your advice on responding to individual messages instead of using a form announcement. [clip] >Which also gives Tripod an out if too many people complain. It shouldn't be merely on the basis of complaints because again here the literalist Bahais have me outgunned.... I.e., they ban together better than those who want an unmoderated newsgroup. > > >Emma A sincere and heartfelt thanks for your taking the time to make these suggestions. I'll try to live by them and incorporate them as much as possible. Emma, often it has seemed to me that the techies on news.groups are quite uninformed about the history of extensive censorship in the Bahai Faith, as is only fair to expect, and take the literalists' side too often when they narrowly walk the line of Usenet protocol. There is a long, long history antecedent to my efforts to create talk.religion.bahai with this kind of censorship and opposition to free speech and opinion. The "Assorted Controversial Documents" section tries to highlight a few such major incidents that broaden out the context of what's really happening on news.groups in regard to talk.religion.bahai. Thanks again. Best wishes, Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: arb/bahai-faith FAQ? I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in putting together a Frequently Asked Questions for monthly posting to help newcomers out? It might contain a chronology of major events during the attempts to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai. Maybe a number of people would be willing to collaborate on it.... Anyone interested? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 8:32 AM Subject: arb/bahai-faith FAQ? I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in putting together a Frequently Asked Questions for monthly posting to help newcomers out? It might contain a chronology of major events during the attempts to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai. Maybe a number of people would be willing to collaborate on it.... Anyone interested? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 6:10 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Michael McKenny In the lefthand column, following this link, https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm you'll find Voices of Conscience Juan Cole Ron House K. Paul Johnson Michael McKenny Just click on McKenny and it will take you to a page with several messages to choose from. Let me know if it still doesn't work. Frederick Glaysher: Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Petra Eissinger To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, July 02, 1998 5:34 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Michael McKenny >Hi Frederick > >you wrote > >You might find some of the messages from Michael McKenny >on my web site of interest if you're not aware of that situation.... > > >I am sorry but what am I doing wrong??????????? I can't find what it is you >are referring to. >I checked on your homepage and don't find anything about Michael McKenny. >Please help me out here.... > >thank you > >Petra > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 6:18 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] arb/bahai-faith FAQ? This is a good place to start the FAQ. What do you say to this: Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed new newsgroup and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* one is since it is on a Big 8 hierarchy. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would have access to talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. -----Original Message----- From: George To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, July 02, 1998 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] arb/bahai-faith FAQ? >Dear Frederick, >I think the job of finding the questions would not be to hard. Just go back over all the posts and look for question marks :). But I can not imagine how we could find THE answer.<And while I gotya here :) what would be the difference between the proposed new newsgroup and alt.religion.bahai? Isn't ARB also unmoderated? >PostOn. >George > >I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in putting >> together a Frequently Asked Questions for monthly >> posting to help newcomers out? It might contain a >> chronology of major events during the attempts to >> create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai. >> >> Maybe a number of people would be willing to >> collaborate on it.... >> >> Anyone interested? >> >> Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 6:20 AM Subject: alt/talk.religion.bahai FAQ -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, July 03, 1998 6:18 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] arb/bahai-faith FAQ? >This is a good place to start the FAQ. What do you say to this: > >Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >new newsgroup and alt.religion.bahai?" > >ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >talk.* one is since it is on a Big 8 hierarchy. Many more Bahais and >non-Bahais would have access to talk.religion.bahai. > >Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" > >ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >would be too. > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: George >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Date: Thursday, July 02, 1998 11:39 PM >Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] arb/bahai-faith FAQ? > > >>Dear Frederick, >>I think the job of finding the questions would not be to hard. Just go back >over all the posts and look for question marks :). But I can not imagine how >we could find THE answer.<questions?? >>And while I gotya here :) what would be the difference between the proposed >new newsgroup and alt.religion.bahai? Isn't ARB also unmoderated? >>PostOn. >>George >> >>I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in putting >>> together a Frequently Asked Questions for monthly >>> posting to help newcomers out? It might contain a >>> chronology of major events during the attempts to >>> create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai. >>> >>> Maybe a number of people would be willing to >>> collaborate on it.... >>> >>> Anyone interested? >>> >>> Frederick Glaysher > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 6:39 AM To: Emma Pease Subject: Re: emailing soc.religion.bahai posters >With a four line sig you've got them obviously in the wrong. With a >longer sig they can cite general usenet practice against long sig >lines and get away with it. Also a short sig line is more likely to >be read and more likely to tempt people to check it out. Their stated reason for rejecting the sig file is because Bahais can link to a site that then links to Bahai covenant breakers. The site they're against is the general Bahai search engine listing for Yahoo! They are in effect censoring Yahoo! too. https://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/Faiths_and_Practices/Bah__ __Faith/ I give it to you because I think it shows how absurd they've become. Given the way one can keep linking along, someone else has shown it's possible to get to covenant breaker sites from other links on soc.religion.bahai. They're obviously after suppressing me and my web site and suggesting to some Bahais that I'm a covenant breaker.... >The news.group folk (not all are techies by the way) are unfamiliar >with Bahai history (I checked out www.religioustolerance.org for some >info). Many were/are more incline to give you credence due to the >results of the first vote; however, memory is short. In addition you >have played into your opponents' hands. Large numbers of posts are >often taken as a sign of a kook as is excessive cross-posting or >discussions about the faults of the Bahai faith in a group not >involved in that. Pre-empt your opponents by using news.groups only >to discuss the technical issues with short pointers to your web page, >other people's web pages, and to talk.religion.misc/alt.religion.bahai >for discussions about the faith and examples of what type of of >discussion you want to have more widely and easily available. Thanks. I'll try to follow more all of the above.... >You gained a lot in the last vote (i.e., many people did not vote 'no' >who voted 'no' on the first vote); hold on to that gain and work on >getting the yes votes out. Will do. Thanks again. I really appreciate your sharing with me your perspective on things. It helps to hear someone else's objective opinion.... > >Emma Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts nonsubscriber "cc" posts) List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 7:05 AM Subject: Customers get BLANK screen on connect Two of my customers have told me that when they connected to my site, homes.hypermart.net, they got just a blank screen until they clicked on the x, which I assume was for the popup ad. At that point, my page would load for a flash second before disconnect. One person said he had to reboot his own computer because it froze up. Does anyone have a solution for this problem? I've never had the problem happen. I'm worrying that it's happening to a lot of other people and I'm losing business because of it. Incidentally, I'm spending a good sum of money advertising my web address in local newspapers and through direct mailing without yet have made a penny that I can trace back to some kind of contact through my web page. I'd appreciate it if someone can find a moment to check my site from their computer and let me know what happens. I realize it might just be the computers of these two individuals concerned.... Let me just say too that I appreciate the service and reliability of hypermart thus far. My page has been on it for about two months. Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com https://homes.hypermart.net/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 8:38 AM Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai A number of people on news.groups and arb have helped me understand that bulk email is inadvisable as a response to the suppressing of my signature file by the "moderators" of soc.religion.bahai. As I have said, I will therefore not be doing so, nor will I any longer post a form email to each new srb poster subsequent to the imposition of the srb ban. I will, however, and have done so this morning, send single, individual emails to each new poster once, and once only, responding differently to their messages and including the signature file of my choice which I have just revised as below until the lifting of the ban.... Since each message will be uniquely tailored to the individual, it can not be considered spam by any stretch of the imagination. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 6:48 AM To: Derrick Stone Subject: Re: upcoming events You might find look at my web site for the fullest answer to your questions. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Derrick Stone To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, July 03, 1998 1:47 PM Subject: Re: upcoming events >Who is the srb? I noticed that it took days for my message to appear.... > >Why do you think that my message, or any replies, would be censored? > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Derrick Stone wrote: >> > >> > Hello all! >> > >> > How about some posts about upcoming activities related to the second >> > airing of "The Power of Race Unity" video? >> > >> > Is there anyone out there that can post recent pictures of the >> > progress of the Mt. Carmel Projects? >> > >> > -Derrick >> >> Are you aware that srb is censoring people's messages? >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 6:57 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: Bogus Usenet Groups >>Currently bogus Usenet groups: > >>talk.religion.bahai failed vote (use soc.religion.bahai) What can happen is that people start posting to a newsgroup because they think it exists, but doesn't, and then its name ends up on the bogus list so that system administrators don't get confused.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:10 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai > Whether it's "spam" or not, I'd still suggest that it's >inadvisable, as a TACTIC. A predictable response of many people >will STILL be that they will start pre-filtering mail from you out >as being unsolicited mass-mailing, under a different name. I'll only be sending them one message, and one only.... > > Fred, in any case, all this repeated, reflexive posting about >your signature file comes across, at least to me, as a >variant of "Dad, he HIT me!" from the back seat of the car. You're justifying Bill Hyman's censoring my sig file? >Come on, Fred -- you studied marketing. Many >people don't even HAVE signature files, and they just aren't going >to get easily excited and mobilized by yours. It's the censoring of it that concerns me. > > For just a moment, can we get back to actual CONTENT? https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm My sig file contains content, content srb's censors don't want you and others to know about.... > What was it you originally wanted to say? https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm Do you have any >message BESIDES the issue of censorship? IT IS THE ISSUE.... Why do you and many other Bahais want to ignore it? If so, can you just >try that message AGAIN? https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >While you have everyone's attention, and before many people just >"tune you out", what was it you wanted to say? https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > > >Wade Schuette ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:11 AM Subject: fw Wade & Cheryll Schuette Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: Wade & Cheryll Schuette To: SRB ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 05, 1998 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai >At 08:38 AM 7/3/98 -0400, Fred Glaysher wrote: >>A number of people on news.groups and arb have helped >>me understand that bulk email is inadvisable as a response >... >>...message will be uniquely tailored to the individual, it can >>not be considered spam by any stretch of the imagination. >... > > Whether it's "spam" or not, I'd still suggest that it's >inadvisable, as a TACTIC. A predictable response of many people >will STILL be that they will start pre-filtering mail from you out >as being unsolicited mass-mailing, under a different name. > > Fred, in any case, all this repeated, reflexive posting about >your signature file comes across, at least to me, as a >variant of "Dad, he HIT me!" from the back seat of the car. >Come on, Fred -- you studied marketing. Many >people don't even HAVE signature files, and they just aren't going >to get easily excited and mobilized by yours. > > For just a moment, can we get back to actual CONTENT? > > What was it you originally wanted to say? Do you have any >message BESIDES the issue of censorship? If so, can you just >try that message AGAIN? > >While you have everyone's attention, and before many people just >"tune you out", what was it you wanted to say? > > >Wade Schuette > > > > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:22 AM Subject: bogus talk.religion.bahai (Re: Baha'i discussion) Anyone with the technical ability can issue a command forming a newsgroup. If someone has done so for talk.religion.bahai, it is a bogus newsgroup since it has not passed a Usenet interest poll on news.groups, which is the only legitimate way of creating a newsgroup that most system administrators around the world will recognize. I would urge people not to post to a bogus talk.religion.bahai, but help work to create it properly within Usenet guidelines. I wouldn't rule out that it's been created by someone actually against its formation.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Zutetflute wrote: >> >>> I've tried a few times to get it going. I think a lot of people seem to be >>> unaware of its existence. So I keep it on my list and try to reply anytime >>> there is a post--which is not often!!!! >>> >>> Andree >> >>The users of alt.religion.bahai might like to know that there is indeed a >>talk.religion.bahai ! > >But not one that has been propogated through usenet. > >If there is one it is not an "Offical" newsgroup so will not be accepted >by the sysops and put on the newsgroups list. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: How many Baha'is are there? Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message <6n6f6t$ed3$1@supernews.com>... >I have been very curious to know exactly how many Baha'is there actually >are. According to the Detroit News, July 5, 1998, 133,000.... A complete lie or distortion of the truth.... 25,000 at best is probably more accurate once all the THOUSANDS of people driven out of the Bahai faith by the fanatics have been taken into consideration.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:40 AM Subject: Re: Original Sin and Christ's Sacrifice "This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues and endures." Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, page 124. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6njc39$277$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Maryam, > > I was a Mormon for 15 years. The Mormon Church teaches that there was no >"original sin". Many Eastern Orthodox churches reject of the notion of >_original sin_; which was popularized by St. Augustine, but invented by >Tertullian; who was a follower of Montanus--a man who claimed to be the Holy >Spirit incarnate in the 2nd century A.D. The Mormon Church teaches that by >Adam came spiritual death, not inherited sin. We all sin because it is our >natures to do so; not because of what Adam did or didn't do. However, St. >Paul declares that via the blood of Christ a "ransom" is paid for our sins. >So, the Atonement of Christ doesn't reverse original sin, but it is a ransom >for the sins of all men (according to Paul). Baha'u'llah calls Paul "His >Holiness Paul" (World Order 1977-78 p.8), and 'Abdu'l-Baha called him "the >Great Apostle" (Balyuzi, *Abdu'l-Baha* p.148), the "divine philosopher" >(ibid.p.354) who was in "close embrace" with Christ (Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha, >p.720) and "became His most faithful servant" (Paris Talks, p.147). So, Paul >was correct in what he said. He never once said "original sin"; this was a >false interpretation first taught by a false prophet (Montanus) that found >it's way into Western Christianity via St. Augustine. > > While it certainly can be argued that Imam Husayn and others offered blood >atonements for sin, certainly Christ did as well. Baha'u'llah and >'Abdu'l-Baha both taught that Jesus died for mankind. 'Abdu'l-Baha refutes >the doctrine of Original Sin in _Some Answered Questions_, but affirms the >Atonement of Christ. Darrick Evenson > > > >In article <"DuZOF.A.C0.DMGn1"@bounty.bcca.org>, > "Maryam Butson" wrote: >> >> G'day Darrick, >> >> > Acknowledging that Jesus suffered for us "like all the Prophets did" is >> not >> >enough. Baha'u'llah said that it was by Jesus' death that "the soul of the >> >sinner is sanctified" (Gleanings p.86). St. Paul was not a false teacher. >> He >> >wrote that Jesus offered a "final sacrifice" for sin! He died for the sins >> of >> >mankind. This is far more than "just another" Prophet being martyred. >> >Darrick Evenson >> >> The concept of "salvation" has appeared in the H-Bahai list so I sometimes >> get a bit confused over what has been said here and there - but a couple of >> the posters on that list brought out the very good point that "salvation" as >> it is understood in the Christian concept, is quite different in the Islamic >> and Baha'i dispensations. For Islam and the Baha'i Faith there is no >> "original sin" which must be solved by the death of an innocent person, and >> so when you say Jesus offered a "final sacrifice" - might it be possible to >> understand it a different way? (Especially when you take into account the >> sufferings of later Prophets eg. "For this reason did Muhammad cry out: "No >> Prophet of God hath suffered such harm as I have suffered." (Kitab-i-Iqan >> p109) ) >> >> "Through the Love of God, Christ was sent into the world with His inspiring >> example of a perfect life of self-sacrifice and devotion, bringing to men >> the message of Eternal Life. It was the Love of God that gave Muhammad power >> to bring the Arabs from a state of animal degradation to a loftier state of >> existence. >> God's Love it was that sustained the Bßb and brought him to his supreme >> sacrifice, and made his bosom the willing target for a thousand bullets. >> Finally, it was the Love of God that gave to the East Bahß'u'llßh, and is >> now sending the light of His teaching far into the West, and from Pole to >> Pole." (Paris Talks p83) >> >> It appears to me, that Baha'i theology teaches that the sufferings and >> martydoms of the Prophets are examples of complete obedience and love to >> God, that they are willing to die in order to bring the teachings of God to >> the people - and it is this sacrifice that atones us, for without their >> willing to suffer persecution and even death, how would we know about God? >> How would we learn how God wants us to live? How would we learn how to >> sanctify our own souls? >> >> Sours' puts it another way, he says that the Manifestations suffer because >> of us and for us. They are innocent, don't deserve to die and yet they >> choose to do so, so that we might learn about God. They suffer because of >> us in that humanity becomes so perverse as to kill its Messengers. >> >> Regards >> Maryam >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:46 AM Subject: Re: fw Wade & Cheryll Schuette Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai > >> Whether it's "spam" or not, I'd still suggest that it's >>inadvisable, as a TACTIC. A predictable response of many people >>will STILL be that they will start pre-filtering mail from you out >>as being unsolicited mass-mailing, under a different name. > >I'll only be sending them one message, and one only.... > >> >> Fred, in any case, all this repeated, reflexive posting about >>your signature file comes across, at least to me, as a >>variant of "Dad, he HIT me!" from the back seat of the car. > >You're justifying Bill Hyman's censoring my sig file? > >>Come on, Fred -- you studied marketing. Many >>people don't even HAVE signature files, and they just aren't going >>to get easily excited and mobilized by yours. > >It's the censoring of it that concerns me. > >> >> For just a moment, can we get back to actual CONTENT? > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >My sig file contains content, content srb's censors don't >want you and others to know about.... > >> What was it you originally wanted to say? > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >Do you have any >>message BESIDES the issue of censorship? > >IT IS THE ISSUE.... Why do you and many other >Bahais want to ignore it? > >If so, can you just >>try that message AGAIN? > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >> >>While you have everyone's attention, and before many people just >>"tune you out", what was it you wanted to say? > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >> >> >>Wade Schuette > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:56 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: arb FAQ draft 2 Question #3 "What is the impetus behind creating talk.religion.bahai? ANSWER: The continuing experience of censorship by many people attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. >Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" > >ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >talk.* one is since it is on a Big 8 hierarchy. Many more Bahais and >non-Bahais would have access to talk.religion.bahai. > >Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" > >ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Customers get BLANK screen on connect Am I correct in understanding you that it probably only happens with IE 3? I'm assuming the "insex page" must be my index.htm. I think I can handle that. My limited understanding of the popup system is that one can either toggle it on or off and that's it. If I put in a banner on my index page won't that run throughout all of my pages? The popups don't bother me. I want my customers to see my whole opening page without a banner in the middle or top covering up my opening screen. Can I put in just the bug fix and leave the popups? Thanks to everyone else who's commented on this problem or tested my site. Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net S. Hartér wrote in message <359CF6A0.D7D5EEDA@Hypermart.net>... >If they have IE 3.x there is a bug with the popups, and a fix can be >found in the Learning Center. You could put a banner on your insex page, >as well as the bug fix, and leave the rest of the site with popups. >-- >Shane Hartér >Hypermart Tech Representative > >Shane@Hypermart.net >ICQ #12882947 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 6:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: darricke@hotmail.com Standard Message -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, July 06, 1998 1:20 PM Subject: Standard Message >Dear Friends, > > Why is the American Baha'i growth rate (2%-3% per year) so incredibly slow? >The Faith in the U.S. grows at about the same rate as religious organizations >which do not seek converts. Why such a dismal growth rate, when other >countries such as India achieve a fantastic rate of growth? I'll try to >answer this. > > To understand why the American Baha'i growth rate is so low we must >understand the following truths: > >1) The 'Standard Message' of the Faith in this country when seeking converts >has been the World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform Message. In other words, >American Baha'is try to attract people to the Faith by pointing-out the "12 >Principles" (social teachings/goals) of the Faith. This has been the >exclusive Message in almost every teaching campaign in the U.S. for the past >50 years. The Faith is presented as the "Way" to achieve a Race Unity, social >betterment for women and minorities, and World Peace. > >2) The _vast_ great majority of Americans do _not_ have "social activist" >personalities! This is a 'key'! Most Baha'is do, but only because they are >people who were attracted to the Faith because of the Standard Message. This >exclusive message attracts people with social-activist personalities. Most >Americans are more concerned with personal success and inner peace than with >joining a religion to achieve World Peace. This is very hard for American >Baha'is (who have social-activist personalities) to understand. Although >_most_ Americans say they want World Peace, and at least half say they would >like Race Unity and Social-Reform, only a _tiny_ percentage of those wanting >these things would join a religion to accomplish them. Only a small >percentage would give money, or participate in a march, to help accomplish >these things. Even a more astronomically minute percentage would leave their >churches and join another religion to accomplish these goals. > >3) The Standard Message is the _exclusive_ message in teaching campaigns used >by the American Baha'i Community. This tends to attract two types of >social-activist personalities: moderate Liberals and Radicals. The moderate >Liberals _usually_ accept the conservative moral precepts of the Faith (to >one degree or another). The Radicals usually _never_ do. They simply ignore >them, or try to fight against them. They see the Faith as a "means" to >achieve their Humanistic goals; in a Humanistic context. Although most will >give Baha'u'llah "lip service", they inwardly don't believe anything He says >if it goes against their Humanist standards (or lack thereof)and philosophy. >Even among moderate Liberals, the moral and religious teachings of the Faith >often play "second string" to the Faith's social teachings (i.e. "12 >Principles"). The various social teachings are taught over and over and over >and over and over and over and over and over again at all meetings and >institutes! The moral teachings are available, but rarely referred to. The >religious teachings (i.e. Afterlife, sin, salvation) are seldom mentioned. >This tends to alienate anyone seeking the Faith who doesn't have a >social-activist personality. > >4) American Baha'is assume that the Standard Message is the most effective, >because they ask their fellow Baha'is "What attracted you to the Faith?" >Naturally, most of them say, "The social teachings!" This is like asking NBA >season ticket holders what they favorite sport is. They will say, >"Basketball!", and then concluding that basketball is the world's by-far >favorite sport(actually, it's Soccer)! Most Baha'is were attracted to the >Faith via it's Standard Message _NOT_ because the Standard Message is most >effective, but because the Standard Message is usually the ONLY message in >teaching campaigns! > >5) Although the social-teachings were a part of the teaching campaigns of >India and Africa, the MAIN message in these countries was that Baha'u'llah >was the Promised One. In India, He was presented as the Kalki Avatar; the >last incarnation of Vishnu. In Africa, He was presented as Christ Returned in >the Glory of the Father. When the Standard Message was used exclusively in >India, for example, the Faith had 800 Baha'is after 4 decades of trying this >message. Then, by using the Prophecy-Fulfilled Message, in just a few decades >there were well over 1 million Baha'is in India. This should teach us >_something_. > >6) People with social-activist personalities are only a small percentage of >the U.S. population. Most of them are secularists (non-religious), and most >others believe in New Age spirituality. This leaves the Faith to compete for >these few souls with religious organizations who ALSO promise World Peace, >Race Unity, Equality of Men and Women (etc.), but at a far less _personal >cost_ than the Baha'i Faith! There are a plethora of New Age cults which >sound _exactly_ like the Faith; even offering a New Age "Messiah" and all the >12 Principles. But they don't require sexual purity, nor other conservative >moral and religious teachings that tend to "turn-off" many religious >social-activists. The Faith is thus left to fend for people who are moderate >Liberal social-activists who have conservative moral values and who are >religious but not currently committed to any other religion. This is an >_ASTRONOMICALLY_ small portion of the U.S. population! > >7) The Faith is barely growing, and the activity rate for American Baha'is is >also quite low. While the Faith does offer prayers, the Communities spend >most of their time discussing social issues (World Peace, Equality of Men and >Women, Race Unity, Universal Auxiliary Language, etc.). These social >principles have become the raison d'entre of the Faith; the Alpha and Omega >of every American Baha'i thought and action. The moral teachings of the Faith >have become footnotes, and the religious teachings endnotes. The "12 >Principles" have become for American Baha'is 12 idols which must constantly >be fed, polished, and supplicated. And the American Community wonders why >they aren't growing, and are barely replacing disaffected Members with New >Believers. Carrie Miles, Ph.D., did a review of a book by Thomas C. Reeves >called *The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Christianity* (The Free >Press, 1996). In the book, Reeves tries to explain why the Liberal Protestant >denominations have lost millions of members in the last decade. Miles writes: > > "The 'mainline' Protestant churches (Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, >United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist, and >American Baptist), once the pillars of the American religious establishment, >have suffered such a decline in membership and attendance that many of their >congregations are not too far from that forty-old-landies benchmark. These >churches have lost between one-fifth to one-third of their members since the >1960s and 70s. Congregations are graying rapidly, a symptom of their failure >to retain their children. Budgets are in crisis, membership satisfaction is >low, missionary zeal is vanishing, and church-sponsored colleges have lost >their religious identity. In sharp contrast, conservative churches (Southern >Baptist, pentecostal, evengelical and Mormon) have grown and thrived during >this same period. According to Reeves, the decline of the mainline was caused >by the liberal politics of its clergy and denominational leaders." (Miles, >Carrie A. "Preaching To An Absent Choir" Sunstone, March 1998, p.60) > > Liberals and Radicals began to enter the seminaries in mass in the early >and mid 1960s (to become agents of change), and by the late 60s and early 70s >they were entering mainline Protestant pulpits. By the 80s they were running >the denominations. When they came to power, _GONE_ was the preaching of sin >and salvation. Gone were the preachings of family and moral values. They >replaced Bible-based preaching with Humanist agendas. They started to >_constantly_ preach World Peace, Race Unity, the Equality of Men and Women, >etc. Some went so far as to preach that homosexuality was okay, and >'homophobia' the real "sin". > > To my _UTTER_ shock and dismay, I've seen some Baha'is on s.r.b. and a.r.b. >suggesting that the Faith isn't growing because it isn't "emphasizing Race >Unity and World Peace enough!" My God! > > If the Faith in the U.S. desires growth, real growth, then it is going to >have to _back-away_ from the Standard Message, and start using the Messages >used so successfully in other countries. It must begin to boldly and >_audaciously_ present Baha'u'llah as "The Return of Christ"; instead of (over >and over and over and over again) offering the Faith as 12 social-goals >toward World Peace and Racial Unity. If you want the masses, you must appeal >to the masses. > ><<of that!>>> > > I agree that the purpose of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is World Unity. >But what _kind_ of Unity? Most Baha'is think of this unity in a >Liberal/Humanistic context; the kind they were taught in secular schools. But >the World Unity envisioned by Baha'u'llah was a Divine Unity; to unify the >peoples of the world with the Will of God. This is not the kind of unity >advocated by the Liberal/Humanist agenda! > > The Baha'is have "Institutes of Race Unity". Does this do anyting for Race >Unity? No, not a thing! It is nothing more than "preaching to the choir"! >Those attracted to such institutes _already believe_ in Race Unity! At best, >it is only a device to attract a few people to the Faith. The _best way_ to >convert racists is not via "Institutes of Race Unity", but by convincing >them--via the Bible--that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ. Once they >believe that, then they will (usually) bow their wills to the Will of God. >This is the principle: convert the heart first, and the brain will follow! >You can't convince racists (black or white) they are wrong with "Institutes >of Race Unity", but by first convincing them that Baha'u'llah is the Return >of Christ, and then they will conform to His Will. > > This post will upset many American Baha'is. They will say, "But it was the >social-teachings that attracted ME to the Faith!" This is true, but you must >understand that as long as this message is used _exclusively_, then the Faith >will always have dormant growth. I meant this post not to merely criticize >Baha'is, but as a way to explain and motivate them to "change their methods" >for the good of the Cause. You can have amazing growth, or stagnant growth. >The choice is yours. Darrick Evenson > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 6:26 AM Subject: Re: Standard Message Darrick, I couldn't agree more with Darrick.... And how in an atmosphere of censorship and control of every thought can it ever change? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 6:41 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: arb FAQ draft 2 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A136DD.6D42@pilot.msu.edu>... REVISED: Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER: Because many people continue to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. >IMHO this is still the weakest arguement for t.r.b. yet still the one >that causes the most controversy. This is not to say that some people >such as yourself may consider this the paramount issue, but that if >t.r.b. is to be created, more widely relevant issues should be brought >to the fore, and the opinions of as broad a spectrum of Baha'is and >non-Baha'is as possible taken into account. What, for instance, would these "more widely relevant issues" be? I'm hoping open to contributions on the FAQ from as many people as possible and welcome them. >Perhaps a simpler question such as "Why create a t.r.b.?" would open the >way for a more inclusive list of reasons. I've used it above.... Also, while you have >characterized moderation on s.r.b. as "censorship" (by which standard >one might ask, when is "moderation" not "censorship" -- and such a >question would be a distraction from the topic of creation of a t.r.b.), >others might disagree. It's not going to be possible to make everyone happy, I'm sure.... So it would seem less problematic to say for >instance something like: "... there have been some questions about the >moderation policy on s.r.b. and/or its implementation." Quite an understatement.... Too much for me.... Avoiding the issue isn't possible. (I say this >while reiterating that IMHO, if there is a problem with s.r.b. >moderation, it would be 1) on the human level Bad personnel? Not a policy of censorship? Odd how it's one bad choice after another.... and 2) best adressed in a >consultative rather than confrontational or "opting-out" fashion.) I suggest the confrontational fashion, as you put it, was created by the srb moderators when THEY said NO you may not post.... Somethings have to be confronted. Their censorship is one of them. I do hope, however, there can be consultation, sharing of different views, on FAQ. >> >Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >> >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" >> > >> >ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >> >talk.* one is since it is on a Big 8 hierarchy. Many more Bahais and >> >non-Bahais would have access to talk.religion.bahai. >> > >> >Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" >> > >> >ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >> >would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list >> bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. > >If you mention one unmoderated mailing list, why not mention others? The others are moderated too. I.e., talisman and h-bahai are; the private Bahai mailing lists are hopelessly so. What else do you have in mind? >There are several open-subscription mailing lists on Baha'i topics other >than the one you created, as well as several unmoderated Baha'i-only >lists. > >Hope this helps... It's a start.... > >DZO Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 6:49 AM Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A11096.17A5@pilot.msu.edu>... Seriously, >though, thank you for heeding the advice of other readers not >to do bulk mailing. I have and am emailing new posters as they come onto srb and will continue to do so since I have been effectively banned from there in the attempt to suppress my sig file.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 7:43 AM Subject: Re: Customers get BLANK screen on connect S. Hartér wrote in message <359CF6A0.D7D5EEDA@Hypermart.net>... >If they have IE 3.x there is a bug with the popups, and a fix can be >found in the Learning Center. You could put a banner on your insex page, >as well as the bug fix, and leave the rest of the site with popups. I can't find the bug fix. Here's the full text from the Learning Center: Tutorials Publishing Tutorials How to create a basic html document Publishing to the Hypermart Server using normal FTP Publishing to the Hypermart Server using FrontPage 97 and 98 Publishing to the Hypermart Server using Netscape Composer Publishing to the Hypermart Server using MS Web Publishing Wizard Newsgroups How to Moderate your newsgroup Hypermart Utilities Tutorials Getting the Hypermart autoresponder working Password Protecting Directories CGI Tutorials Installing the Apache Guardian Script Installling FormMail Installing WWWBoard Installing a Text Counter Installing Image Map (Server Side) Free For all Links Publicizing/Webmaster Resources: NEW! Check out this TalkPoint presentation- Search Engine Secrets: Meet the Experts. See and hear tips on promoting your site in the search engines. BigNoseBird.Com, a great site for webmasters! Sweetin Company, a Hypermart member Submit It!: The Web Site Promotional Tool Add Me! The Internet News Bureau Press Release Service FAQ: How To Announce Your New Web Site The Submission Palace: Submit yourself to over 470 search engines for free.. I checked out several of these links to no avail. Is the IE3 bug fix somewhere else? I'm starting to wonder if hypermart allows this to go uncorrect in order to bump people up to a pay scale system.... Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.com >-- >Shane Hartér >Hypermart Tech Representative > >Shane@Hypermart.net >ICQ #12882947 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 8:00 AM To: pin00987@ping.be Subject: Re: Ritual and ritualism It's on my server this morning so I guess it slipped by.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: `~=x[silvermask]x=~` To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Ritual and ritualism > >How did you get hold of my original post? It does not appear on the >newsgroup at my end. So, I thought it did not pass the standards! > > > >> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 07:01:07 -0400 >> From: FG >> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) >> To: pin00987@ping.be >> Subject: Re: Ritual and ritualism > >> `~=x[silvermask]x=~` wrote: >> > >> > Final statement: THERE IS NO ROOM FOR RITUALS IN THE BAHA'I FAITH! Yes. >> > Rites, there are. Something entirely different. > >> How about ritual ostracism? As imposed by the srb "moderators" on >> me for my unforgiveable sig file below? > >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > / \ > / \ > / \ > _______________________ > ````` from''''' > `~=x[silvermask]x=~' > ~~ > \ / > ~~ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 8:43 AM To: Hellmann, Peter Subject: Re: Ego/Self -----Original Message----- From: Hellmann, Peter To: 'Frederick Glaysher' Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 8:23 AM Subject: RE: Ego/Self >Hi Fred, > >Great comment. :-) > >I have seen your posts over time and I know where you are coming from. I >don't always agree, but I admit there is more than a grain of truth to >your comments about the Baha'i comunity. This Faith is so new that >everyone is still trying to fugure out what it is, even Baha'is that are >very deepened. It seems to me that for it to be figured out everyone must have the possibility of contributing and being heard--something that doesn't exist today.... > >I had an idea this weekend and since you have contacted me I will run it >by you. What do you think of a web discussion site for the Baha'i Faith? >If you are not familiar with this they work much like a newsgroup, but >are dependent on web access. The appeareance is similar to the dejanews >setup. I am thinking of calling it SEEKER Discussion and formally state >that it is for discussion of things spiritual as I am sure that if I say >it is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith I will be harrassed by >individuals who don't like what they see. Judging from my experience and that now of many others, you can count on that.... I've heard of that kind of web site. Good luck with it! Let me know when or if you get it up and running. > >As a friend of mine once said, "Until the Baha'i Faith gets real and >shows the Baha'i Faith, wrinkles and all, it will never grow." The dreamy image just isn't working. Reality keeps rearing its head and always will in this world.... I've stated several times during the last year and a half that my goal is to see the entry by troops into this religion, promptly ignored by the literalists.... It's just not going to happen the way things are.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >Best regards, > >pete > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 7:27 AM >> To: Hellmann, Peter >> Subject: Re: Ego/Self >> >> Hellmann, Peter wrote: >> >> > Please don't think I'm saying there are no true problems in the >> world. I >> > merely would like to see some discussion on the topic of ego and >> self. >> >> I suggest you attempt to post a message on the ego and self of the >> "moderators" of srb.... You will then find out what judgemental means >> in a Bahai context. They have effectively banned me in order to >> suppress >> my >> signature file below: >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >> Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See >> alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" >> posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 8:15 AM To: Derrick Stone Subject: Re: eh? Instead of offering you possibly my owned biased view, let me give you the link to the moderator's message and a response from someone else about it: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Derrick Stone To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 1:12 PM Subject: Re: eh? >Hm, I have figured out that the newsgroup is moderated. I haven't followed >the links, but what's in that signature that they don't want? Is that what >you were told? > >-Derrick > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Derrick Stone wrote: >> > >> > I must admit to being relatively new to this newsgroup. I noticed that >> > my posts don't show up for a few days, so perhaps I am missing some >> > messages. >> >> Are you aware that posts are suppressed by the srb "moderators" >> and never appear at all while the poster never even receives a >> rejection notice? This has become the Bahai way.... I have been >> banned from srb because they wish to suppress the signature file >> below: >> >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 8:16 AM To: Duncan Stickings Subject: Re: 18 months My script would be this: Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Duncan Stickings To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 1:45 PM Subject: Re: 18 months >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> I've been barred from posting any "script" whatsoever by the srb >> "moderators" because they have decided you should not hear about >> the existence of my web site or other information in my signature >> file.... > >Thanks for your e-mail. > >Do you have a script for a 2-5 minute explanation of the faith >you would share with someone face to face? > >-- >Duncan Stickings, GPRS group, Motorola >11411 No 5 Road, Richmond, B.C., Canada, V7A 4Z3 >E-mail: sticking@wdg.mot.com Local: (604) 241-6363 > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 12:47 PM Subject: Re: arb FAQ draft 2 Roger, That was almost a year ago now. I feel enough time has gone by and a a different situation exists. Newcomers to arb and makelist.com need to be updated with a lot of repetition. They often ask the same questions. With the third interest poll approaching, a FAQ is all the more necessary. People with a variety of perspectives may contribute, collaborate, or write their own.... I intend also to put together a chronology of major turns of events, posting both every month or so to arb and makelist.com as well as readily available on my web site, which, incidentally, is now two months old with well over 1900 hits.... More evidence, I would say, of considerable interest in an unmoderated forum on the Bahai faith. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Roger Reini wrote in message <35a2c0a8.194261325@news.newsguy.com>... >Donald is correct. I was the one who had created a draft and briefly >posted it here. I did withdraw it because I had received advice that >it might promote the creation of an FAQ by Covenant breakers. IMHO, >that risk still exists. > >Another point: I feel there should be a consensus for the answers in >any FAQ. I haven't been able to follow the discussion on this (I was >out of the country for a few weeks), but from the portion I've seen, I >feel that a consensus would be difficult to achieve. > >This might be too much of a hot potato to handle right now. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 1998 5:38 PM Subject: Re: Pop up & internet explorer I don't know if this will help figure out the problem or not but one of my customers this afternoon told me he connects to hypermart from AOL.com using their software, whatever that is. He uses Netscape to get to AOL. He has over 30 megabytes of memory. Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 1998 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Customers get BLANK screen on connect S. Hartér (Hypermart) wrote in message <35A31A26.C869EC3B@Hypermart.net>... >Hello. > >I have forwarded an email regarding this issue to all the employees of >Hypermart. Rest assured that something will be done. We appreciate your >patience, and hopefully your understanding in this matter. We are also >looking into a possible fix for frames/banners that will please >everyone. Once again, Thank you. Thanks a lot. I appreciate your efforts. It may be that my kind of business is especially sensitive to this type of problem. I regularly include my web site address now in all my real estate mailing and advertising. For instance, I've just arranged for a subdivision telephone directory to be mailed to 435 houses for $400 with my homes.hypermart.net on the back, which could be used for a good number of years. I usually spend $175 a month for an ad in a local newspaper with a circulation of over 45,000 housesholds, and every month I'm always sending 200 to 400 postcards out to different neighborhoods, all with hypermart.net on it. I hope in addition to my getting some business for myself hypermart might receive a little more exposure in my neck of the woods here in Michigan. I think you've got a great new idea for marketing. Keep up the good work despite us complainers! Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 6:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: A new coalition? (Re: Re(3): arb FAQ draft 2) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A409C7.70A7@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Roger Reini wrote (in part):I >> feel that a consensus would be difficult to achieve. >I concur with this... A consensus on a FAQ isn't necessary. The whole point of an unmoderated newsgroup is to permit a variety of opinions to receive a hearing. The purpose of a FAQ isn't to impose one view of events. As I mentioned in another message that I don't see this morning on my server for some reason, more than one FAQ could exist and might even be preferable to only one. I intend to continue working on a FAQ and would welcome anyone's input. Let me mention here something I stated at the end of the last interest poll. I would be willing to consider a less involved role during the third one since there was possibly a considerable advance on the part of Bahais from a wholesale onslaught to at least restraint demonstrating perhaps deeper understanding of the nature of Usenet and freedom of speech. While interpretations of those events will vary, I still nonetheless believe Bahai hatred of me is so intense, the resentment so vicious, it would be best if other people interested in talk.religion.bahai were at the center of helping Bahais make another advance to the realization that it is actually in their own best interest to support the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup, to put their votes and deeds where the glorious words of the Writings are.... Chris Manvell, a week or two ago on arb, mentioned he still supported the creation of trb, though for different reasons from me. I note Roger Reini as another person who has a very extensive grasp of the situation having been part of the discussion for so very long now.... There are several other people who might contribute significantly and play very important parts this time.... What I am suggesting is that basically the charter for trb be updated and dusted off with my doing little more than submitting it and sticking to the technical questions as much as possible on news.groups.... The real question, to my mind, is will Bahais permit it; last time their preference for continuing to demonize me and talk.religion.bahai went unabated. My suggestion at the end of the last interest poll was completely ignored.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 6:19 AM Subject: Re: CNN Racist Poll >Is America's culture inherently racist? Can anyone name a culture that isn't? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 6:27 AM To: strmcelr@gte.net Subject: Re: Your post to Hypermart Newsgroup Thanks for your suggestions. Actually, my office phone is hidden down there so people don't see it and call it and get someone else in my office! I want them to use the big number that's a direct line to my desk. What's an autotransponder? Sounds important! Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.com -----Original Message----- From: Angela Nielsen To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, July 06, 1998 10:24 PM Subject: RE: Your post to Hypermart Newsgroup >Hi Fred, (cute picture )........your site came up just fine. I would >follow the advise of some of the other posters tho, and get rid of the >popup window ( I saw the snippet of code listed on a recent posting )- >that probably caused the problem with a slow system. I used to have that >trouble with pop up windows because I only had 8 mg of memory.....you >have to assume there are still users out there with only 4 mg also. I >now have 40 mg ... difference is like nite and day. >Personally, I think it is worth the $8 or so a month to go ad-free, and >get all the extra benefits that come with it ( the auto transponder you >get would be well worth for your type of buisness ). >One last suggestion....your office phone # at the bottom of the page >needs to be in bold , it is hard to read against the blue textured >background. >Hope this helps, > Angela >danbydesign.hypermart.net > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 7:16 AM To: bunnyfeet Subject: Fw: your web site - Hypermart Jim, Say, I can't figure out quite where to put this code, so I haven't done anything with it. Should I put it in index.htm or home.htm? Or bar.htm, or top.htm? In IE4, I don't see any separation between the top bar graphic and the side, but in Netscape I do. I suppose that's what you're talking about. If I put it in, will it mess up the graphics when viewed with IE4? Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net -----Original Message----- From: bunnyfeet To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:41 PM Subject: Re: your web site - Hypermart Sorry, I didn't send the HTML code to make the graphic on top meet the graphic on the side. Fred Glaysher, Realtor <body> </body> Try that. It should work better. Bye! Jim -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bunnyfeet Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:56 AM Subject: Re: your web site - Hypermart Jim, Hey, now, I thought the frames looked pretty cool! But I've tried your more seamless interface and have to admit it looks a lot better! I like it and am going to use it. It all seems to work fine. Thanks. Say, do you work for hypermart.net? I've recently had a problem with their popup ads. Last week I upgraded from Microsoft's Inbox to Windows Messaging Update 1. Since then I always get the following error message instead of the popup ads: Internet Explorer Script Error Error has occured in the Script on this page. Line: 166, 57, 45 (always one of these) Char: 4 Error: No such interface supported Any ideas? Can you help me? I also upgraded to WordPerfect8 at the same time. I wonder if maybe the problem could be a more recent version of Times New Roman, but don't really think so. Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net -----Original Message----- From: bunnyfeet To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 10:11 PM Subject: your web site - Hypermart Hey Fred! You don't know me, but.... Your Hypermart frames-based site looked pretty bad, so I worked on the frames page... (index.htm) and worked it out so the graphics meet with no table border. try plugging this index.htm file in and check out the page. It may not look perfect, but it should improve. Let me know what you think and if it works... See index.htm and files attached... See ya! Jim Hungerford San Antonio, TX bunnyfeet@mcione.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 7:32 AM Subject: Re: srb posters express thanks Reposting one since I haven't seen it on my server; second is a new message: (1) >This relatively new (one year) Baha'i couple, asking many of the same >questions you and others have raised, just found the SRB site which led us >to your Freedom of Conscience site. Bravo! Please put us on your mailing >list: [name & address deleted] We, too, have >discovered that "the Emperor has no clothes", and believe it's time for >some hard, honest, challenging discussion and reassessment. > >Our over-riding concern is, what now? Do we, like so many others, just >completely walk away from the Baha'i faith -- do we throw out all the >writings, all the potential the Baha'i faith has to offer, and passively >watch an authoritarian bureaucracy flush the whole thing down the tubes? >In view of the unbreakable, if not infallible, choke-hold the >administration has over the minds of its followers, is there any reasonable >hope of accomplishing anything from within -- or will we probably just get >thrown out of the club with the rest of the naysayers? Have any (other than >the infamous Orthodox Bahai "Covenant Breakers") ever considered creating a >new group based on, or at least incorporating, the Baha'i writings? It all >just seems a darned shame. (2) >I have seen your posts over time and I know where you are coming from. I >don't always agree, but I admit there is more than a grain of truth to >your comments about the Baha'i comunity. This Faith is so new that >everyone is still trying to fugure out what it is, even Baha'is that are >very deepened. > >I had an idea this weekend and since you have contacted me I will run it >by you. What do you think of a web discussion site for the Baha'i Faith? >If you are not familiar with this they work much like a newsgroup, but >are dependent on web access. The appeareance is similar to the dejanews >setup. I am thinking of calling it [deleted] and formally state >that it is for discussion of things spiritual as I am sure that if I say >it is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith I will be harrassed by >individuals who don't like what they see. > >As a friend of mine once said, "Until the Baha'i Faith gets real and >shows the Baha'i Faith, wrinkles and all, it will never grow." Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Neil Kelley[SMTP:neil@nkelley.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 12:59 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: A new coalition? (Re: Re(3): arb FAQ draft 2) On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 06:15:10 -0400, in alt.religion.bahai you wrote: >I still nonetheless believe Bahai >hatred of me is so intense, the resentment so vicious, I'm a Baha'i and again you bracket us all the same. You have accused me of being a liar and of being dishonest and now I hate you intensely and viciously resent you. None of the above is true but I don't like being called these things. I think it'll be a good idea if you shut up and stay out of the trb thing. I'll vote yes again, but start insulting me again when I'm not at my best-----well----you get the picture. (I'm pretty sure others feel the same) This is sent with true Baha'i love. Neil Kelley https://www.nkelley.demon.co.uk A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. Shoghi Effendi. March 11, 1936. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 9:43 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll Not at all true, in my opinion. The Bahai culture, such as it exists, reads like an oxymoron to me, subscribes all too often to the prevailing liberal mentality regarding race and racism and trivializes serious engagement with the profundity of the oneness of humanity.... Rarely, does the Bahai faith have anything to offer other than liberal cliches.... -----Original Message----- From: Mark Nachreiner To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll >The Baha'i culture. > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com >Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 7:54 AM >Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll > > >>>Is America's culture inherently racist? >> >>Can anyone name a culture that isn't? >> >>Frederick Glaysher.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 1:50 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] Rights of CBs in a Baha'i State -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Rights of CBs in a Baha'i State > >What is especially disturbing to me is that no Baha'i authority has been >willing, to my knowledge, to state categorically that non-Baha'is would >have the right to vote and be elected in a Baha'i-dominated society. > >To say that Baha'is must treat people civilly and not deprive them of basic >human rights is admirable. But in actual fact, if there were a shopkeeper >in a largely Baha'i town, and he was declared a covenant breaker, what do >you think would happen to his business, especially if he had business >rivals who were Baha'is in good standing? > >The practice of formal shunning is incompatible with the Most Holy Book, >which says that all human beings are ritually pure and that Baha'is should >associate with all in a pleasant manner. Shunning was reluctantly adopted >by `Abdu'l-Baha in very rare cases to punish individuals, like Farid, who >ran confidence rackets on the Baha'is, or those, like Mirza Muhammad `Ali, >who blatantly attempted to foment schism by claiming to be the head of the >faith. >I'm afraid I don't approve of the way Shoghi Effendi much expanded the >practice, to the extent that when he ordered Baha'is out of a region of >India in 1956, and Akhtarekhavari couldn't leave quickly because he had to >tie up some family business, Shoghi Effendi declared him a covenant >breaker! Not moving house when ordered to do so seems to me an especially >odd crime for which to be sanctioned. And then Shoghi Effendi died and so >Akhtarekhavari had to remain a covenant breaker for years. Finally, years >later, he was given the choice by the Khomeinists between renouncing the >Baha'i faith or being martyred, and he chose to be martyred! Now, that's >faith. > >Soheil Bushru'i's father, Badi` Bushrui, was also declared a covenant >breaker for declining to leave Mandate Palestine when ordered to by Shoghi >Effendi, but later he sought and received forgiveness. > >Well, you could say that in the early days of the faith, `Abdu'l-Baha and >Shoghi Effendi had very few tools to get the Baha'is to do what they >wanted, and the Baha'is were not actually as obedient as they now like to >claim, so drastic measures were resorted to. But to envisage creating a >*permanent class* (or even 'caste') of 'covenant breakers' whom Baha'is are >to shun is to contravene both the spirit and the letter of the Most Holy >Book. And then to extend 'covenant breaking' to just sending out email >messages that someone in Haifa doesn't like is really frightening. > >Fortunately, of course, as long as the Baha'i administration remains so >narrow-minded and rigid, it is highly unlikely to be given any countries to >run. Baha'is forget that converting people is not the same as keeping >them. France was a Catholic country once. But now 40% of the French say >they don't believe in God and only a tiny minority actually attends Mass. >France is an ex-Catholic society. So, even if you could convince any large >numbers of people to become Baha'is, you still have to worry about keeping >them in the faith. Constantly harassing them with 'the covenant' is more >likely to drive them out than keep them in, you know. > > >cheers Juan > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 1:51 PM Subject: fw samm/rebecca dickens [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience -----Original Message----- From: samm/rebecca dickens To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, July 11, 1998 9:03 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience > >We are grateful to find a place where we can learn more about the Baha'i faith from those who seem willing to examine the writings, history of the faith and issues honestly and openly--an uncensored site which will allow us to hear from diverse perspectives. If we had not found this site, we would have just walked away from the whole thing and written off the Baha'i faith as nothing more than a deluded world-domination mind-control religious cult. We still may end up leaving the Baha'i faith, but at least before doing so we will have the opportunity to examine it from alternative perspectives, and we will have the comfort of knowing that not all Baha'i's are fundamentalist fanatics. And yes, we would love an unmoderated FAQ site. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 2:02 PM To: Duder Subject: Re: your web site - Hypermart Okay, thanks, I've put the html code in my index.htm. I can't see any difference myself. Incidental because of the frames I really don't have anything else in my index. The codes are all in homes.htm, bar.htm, and frames1. Liked your site! You're into Java, eh? That stuff's beyond me. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Duder To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 10:23 PM Subject: Re: your web site - Hypermart Put that in your index.htm file and save. Then publish it to the server by FTP. Let me know when you've done that and I'll take a look at it. By the way, your site needs some better graphics, dude. I'll try to whip some up for you and e-mail them to you for your perusal. No charge. Free stuff. If you want, you can check out my work-in-progress site at https://ikon.hypermart.net . Get back to you this weekend. Jim -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bunnyfeet Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 6:15 AM Subject: Fw: your web site - Hypermart Jim, Say, I can't figure out quite where to put this code, so I haven't done anything with it. Should I put it in index.htm or home.htm? Or bar.htm, or top.htm? In IE4, I don't see any separation between the top bar graphic and the side, but in Netscape I do. I suppose that's what you're talking about. If I put it in, will it mess up the graphics when viewed with IE4? Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net -----Original Message----- From: bunnyfeet To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:41 PM Subject: Re: your web site - Hypermart Sorry, I didn't send the HTML code to make the graphic on top meet the graphic on the side. Fred Glaysher, Realtor <body> </body> Try that. It should work better. Bye! Jim -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bunnyfeet Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:56 AM Subject: Re: your web site - Hypermart Jim, Hey, now, I thought the frames looked pretty cool! But I've tried your more seamless interface and have to admit it looks a lot better! I like it and am going to use it. It all seems to work fine. Thanks. Say, do you work for hypermart.net? I've recently had a problem with their popup ads. Last week I upgraded from Microsoft's Inbox to Windows Messaging Update 1. Since then I always get the following error message instead of the popup ads: Internet Explorer Script Error Error has occured in the Script on this page. Line: 166, 57, 45 (always one of these) Char: 4 Error: No such interface supported Any ideas? Can you help me? I also upgraded to WordPerfect8 at the same time. I wonder if maybe the problem could be a more recent version of Times New Roman, but don't really think so. Fred Glaysher FG@hotmail.com homes.hypermart.net -----Original Message----- From: bunnyfeet To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 10:11 PM Subject: your web site - Hypermart Hey Fred! You don't know me, but.... Your Hypermart frames-based site looked pretty bad, so I worked on the frames page... (index.htm) and worked it out so the graphics meet with no table border. try plugging this index.htm file in and check out the page. It may not look perfect, but it should improve. Let me know what you think and if it works... See index.htm and files attached... See ya! Jim Hungerford San Antonio, TX bunnyfeet@mcione.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 2:09 PM To: Manley, Timothy/CVO Subject: Re: Standard Message You can contact srb moderators at srb-mod@bcca.org -----Original Message----- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 10:54 AM Subject: RE: Standard Message >I went to your web page and looked through it. In fact I subscribed to >the email list. > >I was not aware that srb had a moderator -- is there any way in >contacting them that you know of? > >From what I read on your page in your archive It saddens me that both >you and those that "flamed" you would be so aggressive and insulting in >their manner. The "Hate Mail" archive was particularly saddening, >especially from those that were Baha'i. Me too.... > >I do not see that the Faith as a whole is acting with repression or >censorship upon it's members. If this is what you feel, then I am >sorry. It's hard for me to believe otherwise without any evidence.... > >I agree that no avenue of study or topic of discussion should be taboo. >That only through free exploration and study can we grow and learn. The Writings seem to say it over and over.... > >But -- we must always remember what Abdu'l Baha taught us -- we must >take responsibility for the effects we have on others, do not tell >someone (give them) what they are not prepared to receive -- what they >can't handle. > >I may disagree with people's interpretations of the Writings -- but I >speak to them in a manner of respect and reservation. So far I have not >been attacked by it, but, then, of course I have yet to see any of my >posts to srb actually appear on srb. This is why I wish to contact the >moderator if there is one. You might want to look at srb censored messages at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Good luck. You're going to need it, unless I'm wrong.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 2:41 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll >According to Bintyaya@aol.com: >> >> Camille Cosby made the statement that her son's killer learned to hate blacks >> here in the United States. This shows ignorance of racist feelings in other >> countries. We are not the only country with racism. > >It is particularly unfortunate that she said this about someone >coming from the former Soviet Union. I've read repeated horror >stories about how Africans are treated there, and although I >don't recall Ukraine in particular mentioned, would suspect that >hostility toward blacks is higher there than here. Quite an irony, isn't it? This is the type of thing, though, that our trite, liberal conceptions of race so often lead to.... "It's all America's fault or the evil white man's." No one dares say otherwise.... Many people have grown tired of it and perhaps a more profound vision beyond race, without going back to racism, is beginning to evolve. I hope so. I myself have been the victim of racism a number of times, but my skin is the wrong pigment to elicit pity in liberal zealots.... > >The thing about Mrs. Cosby's remarks that causes me despair is >that she is married to a man who had a number one TV show for a >great many years, widely beloved by audiences of all races, and a >living contradiction to her claims that our culture is permeated >with hostility toward blacks. I can't imagine anyone less >qualified to play the race card than a Cosby-- except O. J. >Simpson. I still feel the Bahai faith has a profounder vision of oneness than the liberal prevailing and dominant interpretation in received circles allows.... > >> People all over the world are racist--especially if the culture allows racism >> as "normal" or "human". I think Americans do better than many other >> countries--but worse than others. Oh, oh.... Don't say THAT!!! THAT's taboo.... > >In my travels, and guessing what it would be like to travel as a >black man (I come from an interracial family so may be more >sensitive than most whites to this) I'd say that every European >country I've visited is less welcoming of racial minorities than >the US. India, much less. (I traveled there with a Ghanaian man >who got a chilly reception.) Mexico, somewhat less. Canada, don't >know. The Dominican Republic is a less racially polarized >country, with a wide range of skin tones and few who identify as >"black" or "white" as best I could tell. Ecuador, about the same >as here. Let me add Japan and China to the list of indisputably racist countries that can far exceed the USA.... > At least we're aware of our racism and many >> people try to do something about it. I'd like to see a law here like the one >> in France, which makes it illegal to ask you what your racial/ethnic origins >> are on application forms. But how then will university's discriminate? They'd have to go back to interviews.... Though I personally know it to have been done through videotapes.... > > Multiracial people like my half sisters are behind the movement >here to abolish such questions, but have met stiff resistance. So many intelligent people are now, as they come to experience the injustices that are perpetrated in the name of justice.... I myself used to be a defender of affirmative action until I finally woke up watching my "colleagues" handing out 3.8's to kids who couldn't write a paragraph chocked full of the grossest illiteracies.... Well, there were other experiences that even woke me up more, alas, bitter life, its relentless lessons.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 2:43 PM To: Neil Kelley Subject: Re: A new coalition? (Re: Re(3): arb FAQ draft 2) You don't know what "Bahai love" means.... Don't send me anymore email if you can't post it in public.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Neil Kelley To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 12:59 PM Subject: Re: A new coalition? (Re: Re(3): arb FAQ draft 2) On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 06:15:10 -0400, in alt.religion.bahai you wrote: >I still nonetheless believe Bahai >hatred of me is so intense, the resentment so vicious, I'm a Baha'i and again you bracket us all the same. You have accused me of being a liar and of being dishonest and now I hate you intensely and viciously resent you. None of the above is true but I don't like being called these things. I think it'll be a good idea if you shut up and stay out of the trb thing. I'll vote yes again, but start insulting me again when I'm not at my best-----well----you get the picture. (I'm pretty sure others feel the same) This is sent with true Baha'i love. Neil Kelley https://www.nkelley.demon.co.uk A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. Shoghi Effendi. March 11, 1936. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 1998 8:48 AM To: newdeal@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] The Brave New World Your message was blank. Something went wrong somehow. Try it again. -----Original Message----- From: samm/rebecca dickens To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, July 11, 1998 9:59 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] The Brave New World ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 1998 9:13 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll I would have to say that most members of the Bahai Faith in my experience close their hearts and minds to the type of profound ambiguities and dilemmas Nancy and Paul have been discussing about--I struggle for the right word--"race" I don't like--but can't think of a better one.... Perhaps I should use a phrase then: about what it means to be a human being, fraught with complexity, challenged by the narrow consciousness of others, struggling not to be defined by it.... Another way of putting would be the "oneness of mankind" too often sounds like the liberal tripe that now causes so many of our race problems throughout our society and which is out of sync with the complexity of the human experience of people like Nancy's children or Paul's sisters. For the Bahai Faith to rise above this level, I believe freedom of speech is essential so that Bahais, other than the fundamentalists, can begin to discuss and think about these issues and move towards a mature understanding of Baha'u'llah's Teachings. Too often any real discussion, on srb, for instance, is cut off and people who can contribute something other than the trite cliches are muzzled under the mistaken assumption that they're racist or out of touch with the Writings or whatever.... This list is for anyone honestly to speak their mind on without fear of censorship. Your suggestion that it is only for "bashing" the Bahai Faith appears quite naive to me and even insulting.... I do not believe I'm "bashing" it; I believe I've been viciously bashed and attacked by a very large number of Bahais on srb and elsewhere with impunity and perhaps the collusion of the Bahai institutions, or, at least, the BCCA without a doubt, if that's can be counted as an institution.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, July 11, 1998 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 6:44 AM >> To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] CNN Racist Poll >> >> Not at all true, in my opinion. The Bahai culture, such as it exists, >> reads like an oxymoron to me, subscribes all too >> often to the prevailing liberal mentality regarding race and racism >> and trivializes serious engagement with the profundity of the >> oneness of humanity.... Rarely, does the Bahai faith have anything >> to offer other than liberal cliches.... >> >> >> > [Tman] > I have to disagree with you Fred. Liberal cliches? I'm sorry >-- I haven't any books with me today -- but Shogi Effendi did write >about three things each race must do. I don't see that as Liberal >Cliche. > > Wish I could quote right now.... >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 1998 9:44 AM Subject: FAQ Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A3FFAE.51E2@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>REVISED: >>Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" >>ANSWER: Because many people continue to experience censorship >>when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. > >Such an "answer" would drastically re-narrow what seemed to this reader >to be a broadening consensus about a possible t.r.b. In the second >interest poll on t.r.b., there was a greater emphasis than in the first >one on consultation along with a discussion of the nature of Usenet >interest poll voting -- both laudable. Now with this proposed "answer," >other reasons to support a broadened Baha'i presence on Usenet are >discounted, reasons that IMHO are more compelling than what you give as >"the reason," without even mentioning the fact that other reasons might >generate more support. Moreover, it still seems to me that the more one >tries to link agreement with the contention that s.r.b. is "censored" >(or even more controversially that there is somehow some kind of bias to >"censorship" in the Baha'i community) with voting "yes" on t.r.b., the >more one increases the chance for another failure. I for one could not >vote yes for t.r.b. if I felt that it could be construed as supporting >such allegations. > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A136DD.6D42@pilot.msu.edu>... >>>IMHO this is still the weakest arguement for t.r.b. yet still the one >>>that causes the most controversy. This is not to say that some people >>>such as yourself may consider this the paramount issue, but that if >>>t.r.b. is to be created, more widely relevant issues should be brought >>>to the fore, and the opinions of as broad a spectrum of Baha'is and >>>non-Baha'is as possible taken into account. >> >>What, for instance, would these "more widely relevant issues" be? > >Here's a hasty sketch... > >The Baha'i Faith as the youngest of the world religions, with its >diverse worldwide community, its extensive teachings, and varied >devotional and community activities, is a topic of interest to many >people, Baha'i and non-Baha'i. In addition, the Baha'i teachings on >respect & courtesy, use of language, and the process of building world >unity have potentially interesting application in the Usenet environment >-- application which needs to be explored and developed. > >A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue >for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x >Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a >non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions >for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. >As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of >evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment >(understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and >that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that >virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of >environments). I find all of the above helpful in presenting one view of the situation, one that can contribute to the discussion and creation of trb. It's shortcomings is that it is only view, one that seeks to ignore what much of the impetus behind trb has been--actual censorship at srb--while continuing to malign anyone who would dare say so.... > >This unmoderated environment would complement and not replace the >moderated newsgroup, soc.religion.bahai, and the unmoderated newsgroup >alt.religion.bahai. > >>I'm hoping open to contributions on the FAQ from as many >>people as possible and welcome them. > >Thank you for saying this. Yet I must reiterate that I don't see how >your proposed FAQ is either needed or helpful. Save this for the RFD >drafting process (whether you are a proponent or not). Please forget >trying to draft/issue a FAQ -- none of us needs to issue anything >"authoritative" (which is how I understand a FAQ, as a basic and >commonly agreed upon reference) on this topic. One possibility might be to include your observations above in a FAQ. It would appeal to some. >>It's not going to be possible to make everyone happy, I'm sure.... > >Another reason to dispense with this FAQ. It isn't needed, it won't >help anything, and it risks stirring up fruitless controversy... NOT having one is not going to make everyone happy either.... That's the reality of free speech. There are different views that need to be aired and permitting only one to receive a hearing as you wish to do doesn't help matters overall. > >>>So it would seem less problematic to say for >>>instance something like: "... there have been some questions about the >>>moderation policy on s.r.b. and/or its implementation." >> >>Quite an understatement.... Too much for me.... Avoiding the issue >>isn't possible. > >Our opinions differ on this. I don't see it as an understatement or an >avoidance of any issue. I direct you to my web site page with samples of censored messages and the statements of many different people on the subject: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm > >>(I say this >>>while reiterating that IMHO, if there is a problem with s.r.b. >>>moderation, it would be 1) on the human level >> >>Bad personnel? Not a policy of censorship? Odd how it's one >>bad choice after another.... > >No not "bad personnel" -- people aren't "bad." People are all to human >in application of policies etc., esp. on a volunteer, part-time basis, >and constructive criticism (even if apparently ignored) is the best way >to encourage and help each other. > >>>and 2) best adressed in a >>>consultative rather than confrontational or "opting-out" fashion.) >> >>I suggest the confrontational fashion, as you put it, was created >>by the srb moderators when THEY said NO you may not post.... >>Somethings have to be confronted. Their censorship is one of >>them. I do hope, however, there can be consultation, sharing of >>different views, on FAQ. > >A number of people have offered the suggestion that if there is a >problem with something like s.r.b., there are channels to deal with it. >Working through establshed channels can be seen as an educative and >growth process for all. IMHO a lot more could have been (& still can >be) accomplished by taking this route. With all due respect, I fail to >see how your FAQ can help bring more light to this or any other issue at >hand. Sharing of views can happen without pretense to issuing a FAQ; >consultation can IMHO best be focused on a specific real task, like >drafting an RFD for t.r.b. when the time comes. A draft already exists. The first and second RFD needly be dusted off and updated since there was nothing wrong basically with either one. An entirely new RFD would be superfluous.... > >[snip] >>>>>Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" >>>>> >>>>>ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >>>>>would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list >>>>bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. >>> >>>If you mention one unmoderated mailing list, why not mention others? >> >>The others are moderated too. I.e., talisman and h-bahai are; the >>private Bahai mailing lists are hopelessly so. What else do you >>have in mind? > >It seems to me that there are some at university or commercial domains. >Also, how are the Baha'i lists "moderated"? > >>>There are several open-subscription mailing lists on Baha'i topics other >>>than the one you created, as well as several unmoderated Baha'i-only >>>lists. >>> >>>Hope this helps... >> >>It's a start.... > >Again, let me express my opinion that a FAQ is neither necessary nor >helpful at this time. All the same, thank you for your response to my >suggestions. Perhaps all this can be refocused on the t.r.b. RFD >whenever that comes (who will be the proponents this time around?). >Hope this helps. As I've stated a number of times, I would like to take a less involved role, perhaps largely only submitting the RFD and sticking to technical questions as much as possible since Bahais can control their hatred for me.... Anyone who wishes to be a proponent could be in theory if they're sincere about wanting it to pass and not Soviet-style moles working in the FBI, so to speak.... How about you, Donald? If you can bring yourself to respect the fact that MANY other people believe there is censorship on srb and not ignore that view, you might be able to create a better hearing for your side of the issue. I'm not against maybe as many as 5 or 6 proponents to represent the quite divergent opinions about trb. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 1998 9:58 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Standard Message > From: darricke@hotmail.com > > To understand why the American Baha'i growth rate is so low we must > >understand the following truths: > > > >1) The 'Standard Message' of the Faith in this country when seeking > converts > >has been the World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform Message. I wanted to add some points to this excellent article, which I'll mostly clip to save space. Dead right Darrick: the BF is presented in the west as a social movement. Now this would be passable if in doing so they kept to the true teachings of Baha'u'llah, but they don't. To consider the most glaring case in point: male-female relations. Now I know I will tread on a few enlightened toes in what I am about to say, but I think that the BF (and the rest of the liberal world) has it all dead wrong. Baha'u'llah taught that "Mankind is one", that we are all the leaves of one tree and the fruit of one branch. Yet the Liberal political establishment, in a derailment of Marxism (itself a great evil), has set up a female proletariat and a male bourgoisie (spelling?) and divided the world into male=bad/female=good. About two years ago a truly hateful and spiteful piece of anti-male badmouthing was published in the Australian Baha'i Bulletin. The filfthy piece went on for a considerable distance about such things as how the western colonialist MEN subjugated the poor so they could steal jewels to decorate THEIR women (not noticing for an instant that western women and their desires played some little part in the process). My point: the modern BF has swallowed an evil Marxist political doctrine in its entirety. Where the BF should be leading, it is following, and following up one of the nastiest and sleaziest alleys has ever been erected. Baha'u'llah actually taught that we should eliminate all past prejudice, not replace it with new prejudices in the other direction. But consider this: he did not teach that there should be political equality. In a divorce, the woman takes her clothes and whatever she can prove he gave her, nothing more. (Read the Kitab-i-aqdas if you don't believe it.) Now I don't approve of the laws of the KiA in this regard, but that doesn't mean I approve of the modern habit of pretending they don't exist. Modern Baha'is should be publicising these laws and coming to grips with the truth that they exist and they seem to contradict elementary fairness. My explanation of these laws is that Baha'u'llah wasn't infallible and they are mistakes. Perhaps other explanations are possible. But as long as Baha'is LIE to the public about the real teachings of their religion, they violate the fundamental requirements of the BF regarding the need for a stainless and pure character. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 1998 10:11 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] arb FAQ draft 2 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Roger, > > That was almost a year ago now. I feel enough time has gone by and > a a different situation exists. Newcomers to arb and makelist.com need > to be updated with a lot of repetition. They often ask the same questions. > With the third interest poll approaching, a FAQ is all the more necessary. Based on the results of the previous interest poll, it seems that much work needs to be done to get the residents of ARB to go out and vote. I would like to suggest that in the next call for discussion, we explicitly state that we regard relevant mainstream & alt internet newsgroups as appropriate places for discussion of the proposal provided notification of a discussion is posted to news.groups. In other words, we take the wind out of the sails of the SRB moderators when they try to ban discussion of the proposal on SRB. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 1998 11:01 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] This email list Manley, Timothy/CVO wrote: > > Is this list for discussing the Baha'i Faith -- and the Writings of the > Faith? > > Or is this list for bashing the Baha'i Faith and its followers? > > So far I'm afraid I've seen only the latter -- but, I have only been > signed up for a couple of days....... Well, if the only mainstream newsgroup refuses to accept these kinds of things, there will obviously be a head of steam that has to blow off in the only forum it can get. Unfortunately the Baha'i communities are really loaded with intolerance. I know many, many people who consider themselves sincere, believing Baha'is (unlike a no hoper like me!) who nevertheless don't attend feasts and the like because they find the closed-minded attitudes there just too unbearable and they don't have the confidence to be the only person standing up and saying "look, let's open our minds a bit!" You see, when we join the Faith, we are full of enthusiasm and we meet others who are ditto. But when we have a misgiving, or a criticism, or a complaint, we have it alone; the chances of everyone in the room having the same problem at the same time is low. So if the current state of affairs can't make people with problems feel welcome, they will leave. And then if they find a forum where others are saying the same kinds of things they have felt, they will get involved. It's only human nature. But to me the interesting question is not whether this list is only for bashers, it is: are the accusations being made true? Because if they are, then the mainstream Baha'is have caused the problem in the first place. But remember, here, unlike at SRB, you have as much right and ability to make your views known as anyone else. If the denizens here are way off base, tell us why. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 1998 9:28 AM To: RBCCRC@bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: question -----Original Message----- From: Javacrucian To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 6:01 PM Subject: question >Mr. Glaysher, > Hello there. Forgive this intrusion into your mailbox; I just have two >quick questions for you. You wrote an E-mail to me regarding censorship >in srb, and quoted part of my posting (my first ever, actually). I'm >just wondering how you saw my post, because so far as I can tell it >never made it to the newsgroup for display (at least I can't see it!). >I've been wondering if perhaps I had said something to cause the >moderators to reject it, but now I see others have read it and now I'm >confused! Did you see it in srb? Yes, it was on my server for srb. > Secondly, I take it from your letter you yourself are being censored >from the group-- why? The "moderators" object to my signature file because it points to my web site which has on it numerous messages from over 20 or 30 people at least stating they have been censored by srb and don't feel good about it, etc.... They also object to the formation of talk.religion.bahai, an unmoderated newsgroups that fundamentalists in the faith have successfully blocked twice now and a third interest poll is approaching at the end of the summer. You can find out more about all this and judge for yourself on alt.religion.bahai or the other newsgroups and mailing lists below: > Peace and Unity, > Richard (aka Stoic, aka Javacrucian) > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO[SMTP:tmanley@CH2M.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 1998 11:18 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Manley, Timothy/CVO Subject: unease Fred, In reference to: bahai-faith@makelist.com I respect your commitment to freedom of thought and expression. I too, share such a commitment. But, I also have another one, a Code of Honor you might say. I reserve for myself the right to give or accept or refuse communication. I also give others this right. I feel that in your zeal to allow freedom of expression (I'm assuming you have set up this email group) you have become a duplicitous and have denied other people this right. Even within the first day of email on this group I felt an unease. I have taken that unease and have discovered that much of the content on your email list if from the two largest Covenant breaker groups, 1 based in New Mexico and the other posting from a site in Australia. I have talked to SRB about their "censorship" of your signature -- this is the reason they give. Let me explain my point. I do believe in Freedom of Expression. I also have a lot of experience in dealing with Human Kind. Words are power. Many people tend to communicate with covert agendas. They use these avenues of communication to incite some of the baser emotions (fear, anger, etc) and further their cause by inciting discord. Now, many, most I think, are not consciously aware of this. They, themselves, were "turned" to this way. They do not know that they are now using covert agendas and desires in their communication whose effort is to cause discord. Much like the one who carries tuberculosis is unaware of infecting those around them, and then, they too become carriers. The level of Awareness is not there. Also, many are not secure enough in their Faith and their Mind to be immune to such forms of communicate. All most no one can be immune to it over time, I believe. You obviously agree that words are power, else you would not be so devoted to your cause of freedom of expression, nor would you say the things you have about the Writings and about censorship. But, you are denying the right of some of your members the ability to choose with whom they wish to communicate and associate. There are those, I'm sure, that are on your list that are not members of these Covenant breaking groups and I'm sure have little or no knowledge of them (as I). By giving these groups avenue for their point of view, and not allowing knowledge of this avenue, you are, in fact, aiding them is their creation of discord. So -- here's the edge that bites both ways. You give avenue to those that communicate in such a covert manner because your Faith and belief dictate you do so. Yet, you also are enabling the creation of discord. I do not pretend to even guess at your intent or your belief -- if I have given that impression it is merely due to lack of writing skill on my part. I strongly feel that the words and intent of CBs are infectious and spiritually disastrous. Proof -- I do not readily have any. I do not know of people that have become CBs because of their affiliation with CBs. Opinion -- yes, most definitely. It is based on "unease," a "feeling" a totally personal thing. I will not insult you by telling you what I think you should do. All I can say is to read the Words of Baha'u'llah. Therein lies the answer to any spiritually quandary. ---tim ---------- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO[SMTP:tmanley@CH2M.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 1998 5:43 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] unsubscribe unsubscribe ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 2:33 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] miscellaneous 1) There are strong elements of patriarchy in the governance of the contemporary Baha'i faith. But that is no reason to leave the religion, for heaven's sake. Methodism and Episcopalianism were complete patriarchies until recently, and now there are women clergy, and things are changing. The Baha'i faith can change, as well, especially since Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha manifestly did not want their religion to be patriarchal, and since they also did not want it to be rigid or unable to change with the times as appropriate to scriptural principle. It may take a century, but women will eventually serve on the UHJ. Remember that most Baha'i women presently are peasants, mainly in Asia, and not exactly liberated. As they urbanize and become educated, their aspirations will change. All it would take is for all Baha'i women to raise their sons to believe that women should serve on the House. :-) 2) I don't find Burl's explaining away of Baha'u'llah's lack of knowledge about who uttered the words he quoted to be convincing. Unfortunately, when you begin with a theologically highly conservative stance that denies the basic humanity of the Great Souls, you are ultimately forced to spend a great deal of time explaining away a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why such a point of view appeals to anyone boggles my mind. Another problem is that while Burl and I can take each other out for pizza because we respect each other's point of view as human beings, it is also the case that those Baha'is with a liberal theology have often been silenced or forced out of the religion by Baha'is with a conservative theology. I've never known it to go the other way around. This makes me suspect that a far-right theology is a form of power play and a means of attempting to dominate others and tell them what they may or may not say. Note that in contrast I actually am hosting the expression of conservative views here on Talisman. How many Baha'i conservatives would extend the same courtesy to liberals (aside from Burl, I mean)? 3) I find all the covenant breaker groups to base themselves on illogic and to be rather flakey, and have no brief for them. But as someone who was investigated for verbal covenant breaking I wish to assure Mark Foster that accusing people of breaking the covenant is done in an unfair and invidious fashion all the time in the Baha'i faith, and that the Baha'i institutions do not in fact actually honor the civil rights of the accused. Besides, shunning someone *is* depriving them of their civil rights. Mainstream Baha'is treat CB's exactly the way white people treated black people in the Jim Crow South. Worse, actually, since a Baha'i would most certainly not employ a CB in his or her house as a domestic! This is civil rights? As for the case in late 1996 in New Zealand, it is *very* revealing. A new Baha'i of 6 months had a friend who was from a branch of Shoghi Effendi's family that had been declared CB's. (Her friend had never been a Baha'i!) When this woman became a Baha'i, she was ragged at to drop her old friend. She declined, and ultimately resigned from the Baha'i faith. *After* she resigned, she was declared a CB and meetings were held throughout New Zealand to ensure that Baha'is boycotted her. The whole thing only took 6 months. The arbitrariness and the expeditiousness of the process give the lie to Baha'i cover stories about the process of declaring someone a covenant breaker. Finally, the configuring of the covenant breaker as an agent of disease or as someone who is undermining Baha'i society is a typical ploy used by a large group to persecute a small group. Hitler also depicted the Jews as agressors actively destroying Germany, so that killing them was only self-defense. Now, the Baha'is don't do anything as drastic as that to covenant breakers, but they do ostracize them. And there isn't any difference between that and a Catholic bishop ordering his congregants not to associate with Protestants on pain of excommunication, or a Shi`ite Ayatullah ordering the faithful not to associate with Baha'is. Baha'is are no more tolerant or truly universal or loving than members of any other religion. Their treatment of intellectuals, dissidents, and schismatics, on the other hand, is certainly on the whole far more vindictive than is true of most U.S. religious bodies. cheers Juan ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 6:56 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] fw Manley, Timothy/CVO unease: bahai-faith@makelist.com fyi -----Original Message----- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO To: Frederick Glaysher ; Manley, Timothy/CVO Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 11:19 AM Subject: unease >Fred, > >In reference to: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >I respect your commitment to freedom of thought and expression. I too, >share such a commitment. But, I also have another one, a Code of Honor >you might say. I reserve for myself the right to give or accept or >refuse communication. I also give others this right. I feel that in >your zeal to allow freedom of expression (I'm assuming you have set up >this email group) you have become a duplicitous and have denied other >people this right. > >Even within the first day of email on this group I felt an unease. I >have taken that unease and have discovered that much of the content on >your email list if from the two largest Covenant breaker groups, 1 based >in New Mexico and the other posting from a site in Australia. I have >talked to SRB about their "censorship" of your signature -- this is the >reason they give. > >Let me explain my point. I do believe in Freedom of Expression. I also >have a lot of experience in dealing with Human Kind. Words are power. >Many people tend to communicate with covert agendas. They use these >avenues of communication to incite some of the baser emotions (fear, >anger, etc) and further their cause by inciting discord. Now, many, >most I think, are not consciously aware of this. They, themselves, were >"turned" to this way. They do not know that they are now using covert >agendas and desires in their communication whose effort is to cause >discord. Much like the one who carries tuberculosis is unaware of >infecting those around them, and then, they too become carriers. The >level of Awareness is not there. Also, many are not secure enough in >their Faith and their Mind to be immune to such forms of communicate. >All most no one can be immune to it over time, I believe. > >You obviously agree that words are power, else you would not be so >devoted to your cause of freedom of expression, nor would you say the >things you have about the Writings and about censorship. But, you are >denying the right of some of your members the ability to choose with >whom they wish to communicate and associate. There are those, I'm sure, >that are on your list that are not members of these Covenant breaking >groups and I'm sure have little or no knowledge of them (as I). By >giving these groups avenue for their point of view, and not allowing >knowledge of this avenue, you are, in fact, aiding them is their >creation of discord. > >So -- here's the edge that bites both ways. You give avenue to those >that communicate in such a covert manner because your Faith and belief >dictate you do so. Yet, you also are enabling the creation of discord. > >I do not pretend to even guess at your intent or your belief -- if I >have given that impression it is merely due to lack of writing skill on >my part. I strongly feel that the words and intent of CBs are >infectious and spiritually disastrous. Proof -- I do not readily have >any. I do not know of people that have become CBs because of their >affiliation with CBs. Opinion -- yes, most definitely. It is based on >"unease," a "feeling" a totally personal thing. > >I will not insult you by telling you what I think you should do. All I >can say is to read the Words of Baha'u'llah. Therein lies the answer to >any spiritually quandary. > >---tim > ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 6:56 AM Subject: fw Manley, Timothy/CVO unease: bahai-faith@makelist.com fyi -----Original Message----- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO To: Frederick Glaysher ; Manley, Timothy/CVO Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 11:19 AM Subject: unease >Fred, > >In reference to: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >I respect your commitment to freedom of thought and expression. I too, >share such a commitment. But, I also have another one, a Code of Honor >you might say. I reserve for myself the right to give or accept or >refuse communication. I also give others this right. I feel that in >your zeal to allow freedom of expression (I'm assuming you have set up >this email group) you have become a duplicitous and have denied other >people this right. > >Even within the first day of email on this group I felt an unease. I >have taken that unease and have discovered that much of the content on >your email list if from the two largest Covenant breaker groups, 1 based >in New Mexico and the other posting from a site in Australia. I have >talked to SRB about their "censorship" of your signature -- this is the >reason they give. > >Let me explain my point. I do believe in Freedom of Expression. I also >have a lot of experience in dealing with Human Kind. Words are power. >Many people tend to communicate with covert agendas. They use these >avenues of communication to incite some of the baser emotions (fear, >anger, etc) and further their cause by inciting discord. Now, many, >most I think, are not consciously aware of this. They, themselves, were >"turned" to this way. They do not know that they are now using covert >agendas and desires in their communication whose effort is to cause >discord. Much like the one who carries tuberculosis is unaware of >infecting those around them, and then, they too become carriers. The >level of Awareness is not there. Also, many are not secure enough in >their Faith and their Mind to be immune to such forms of communicate. >All most no one can be immune to it over time, I believe. > >You obviously agree that words are power, else you would not be so >devoted to your cause of freedom of expression, nor would you say the >things you have about the Writings and about censorship. But, you are >denying the right of some of your members the ability to choose with >whom they wish to communicate and associate. There are those, I'm sure, >that are on your list that are not members of these Covenant breaking >groups and I'm sure have little or no knowledge of them (as I). By >giving these groups avenue for their point of view, and not allowing >knowledge of this avenue, you are, in fact, aiding them is their >creation of discord. > >So -- here's the edge that bites both ways. You give avenue to those >that communicate in such a covert manner because your Faith and belief >dictate you do so. Yet, you also are enabling the creation of discord. > >I do not pretend to even guess at your intent or your belief -- if I >have given that impression it is merely due to lack of writing skill on >my part. I strongly feel that the words and intent of CBs are >infectious and spiritually disastrous. Proof -- I do not readily have >any. I do not know of people that have become CBs because of their >affiliation with CBs. Opinion -- yes, most definitely. It is based on >"unease," a "feeling" a totally personal thing. > >I will not insult you by telling you what I think you should do. All I >can say is to read the Words of Baha'u'llah. Therein lies the answer to >any spiritually quandary. > >---tim > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 6:58 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] unsubscribe You subscribed yourself. You can now unsubscribe yourself if you wish using whatever the method was to join this list. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Manley, Timothy/CVO To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 5:44 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] unsubscribe >unsubscribe > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:05 AM Subject: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] miscellaneous -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] miscellaneous > > >1) There are strong elements of patriarchy in the governance of the >contemporary Baha'i faith. But that is no reason to leave the religion, >for heaven's sake. Methodism and Episcopalianism were complete >patriarchies until recently, and now there are women clergy, and things are >changing. The Baha'i faith can change, as well, especially since >Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha manifestly did not want their religion to be >patriarchal, and since they also did not want it to be rigid or unable to >change with the times as appropriate to scriptural principle. It may take >a century, but women will eventually serve on the UHJ. Remember that most >Baha'i women presently are peasants, mainly in Asia, and not exactly >liberated. As they urbanize and become educated, their aspirations will >change. All it would take is for all Baha'i women to raise their sons to >believe that women should serve on the House. :-) > >2) I don't find Burl's explaining away of Baha'u'llah's lack of knowledge >about who uttered the words he quoted to be convincing. Unfortunately, >when you begin with a theologically highly conservative stance that denies >the basic humanity of the Great Souls, you are ultimately forced to spend a >great deal of time explaining away a mountain of evidence to the contrary. >Why such a point of view appeals to anyone boggles my mind. Another >problem is that while Burl and I can take each other out for pizza because >we respect each other's point of view as human beings, it is also the case >that those Baha'is with a liberal theology have often been silenced or >forced out of the religion by Baha'is with a conservative theology. I've >never known it to go the other way around. This makes me suspect that a >far-right theology is a form of power play and a means of attempting to >dominate others and tell them what they may or may not say. Note that in >contrast I actually am hosting the expression of conservative views here on >Talisman. How many Baha'i conservatives would extend the same courtesy to >liberals (aside from Burl, I mean)? > >3) I find all the covenant breaker groups to base themselves on illogic >and to be rather flakey, and have no brief for them. > >But as someone who was investigated for verbal covenant breaking I wish to >assure Mark Foster that accusing people of breaking the covenant is done in >an unfair and invidious fashion all the time in the Baha'i faith, and that >the Baha'i institutions do not in fact actually honor the civil rights of >the accused. Besides, shunning someone *is* depriving them of their civil >rights. Mainstream Baha'is treat CB's exactly the way white people treated >black people in the Jim Crow South. Worse, actually, since a Baha'i would >most certainly not employ a CB in his or her house as a domestic! This is >civil rights? As for the case in late 1996 in New Zealand, it is *very* >revealing. A new Baha'i of 6 months had a friend who was from a branch of >Shoghi Effendi's family that had been declared CB's. (Her friend had never >been a Baha'i!) When this woman became a Baha'i, she was ragged at to drop >her old friend. She declined, and ultimately resigned from the Baha'i >faith. *After* she resigned, she was declared a CB and meetings were held >throughout New Zealand to ensure that Baha'is boycotted her. The whole >thing only took 6 months. The arbitrariness and the expeditiousness of the >process give the lie to Baha'i cover stories about the process of declaring >someone a covenant breaker. > >Finally, the configuring of the covenant breaker as an agent of disease or >as someone who is undermining Baha'i society is a typical ploy used by a >large group to persecute a small group. Hitler also depicted the Jews as >agressors actively destroying Germany, so that killing them was only >self-defense. Now, the Baha'is don't do anything as drastic as that to >covenant breakers, but they do ostracize them. And there isn't any >difference between that and a Catholic bishop ordering his congregants not >to associate with Protestants on pain of excommunication, or a Shi`ite >Ayatullah ordering the faithful not to associate with Baha'is. Baha'is are >no more tolerant or truly universal or loving than members of any other >religion. Their treatment of intellectuals, dissidents, and schismatics, >on the other hand, is certainly on the whole far more vindictive than is >true of most U.S. religious bodies. > > >cheers > >Juan > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] Now, The Stylistics fyi -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Talisman Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Now, The Stylistics Since people are throwing quotes around, let us consider the following, in which Baha'u'llah addresses Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Najafi Isfahani, whom he called 'the son of the Wolf.' Baha'u'llah complains that Aqa Najafi has misunderstoon the nature of Baha'u'llah's claims to divinity. But note how he begins the sentence: Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, by Bahá'u'lláh, p. 41: "Either thou or someone else hath said: 'Let the Súrih of Tawhíd be translated, so that all may know and be fully persuaded that the one true God begetteth not, nor is He begotten. Moreover, the Bábís believe in his (Bahá'u'lláh's's) Divinity and Godhood.'" So, let me ask the docetists around here: didn't Baha'u'llah *know* whether Aqa Najafi or someone else uttered these words and this complaint? If God is speaking through Baha'u'llah, didn't *God* know? This phrase doesn't disprove that Baha'u'llah was speaking under the impetus of inspiration. But that he spoke this way (and did so a good deal) suggests he had an ordinary human consciousness even when writing, with regard to things like factual detail. There is an anecdote I read recently, wherein the early 19th century clergyman and writer Sydney Smith heard two women arguing on the street outside his window. He observed, "Those two will never agree--they are arguing from different premises." In the same way, Burl Barer & Richard Logan and I begin from different premises in examining how Baha'u'llah's teachings developed. I see him as an inspired human being, but a human being nevertheless, a Great Soul and religious genius, who interacted with the world and changed his mind and grew spiritually. And I find such a figure tremendously more exciting, interesting and inspiring than I do some supposedly God-controlled automaton. Burl and Richard have a very different point of view. I would call it conservative, just as they call mine 'materialist' (ah, we secular humanist materialists are everywhere, aren't we? Jerry Falwell is mad at us, and so is Farzam Arbab). So what should we do about this difference? It can't be settled by evidence and reason, or else they would have been converted to my point of view by now or I to theirs, given that we are all people of good faith. When a dispute broke out in Iran during Baha'u'llah's lifetime between those who saw him as an inspired human being (as I do) and those who saw him as God, the disputants sought a resolution from Baha'u'llah. He refused to give them one. He said that how an individual viewed this issue depends on his or her spiritual station (maqam). Perceptions differ and beliefs differ according to station. He did not say which belief he thought belonged to the higher station, either. (All this is in the tablet to Jamal Burujirdi, which is up under Translations on my web site, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm ) So, Baha'u'llah's solution was tolerance. People with differing theological perspectives just have to try to get along despite the differences. Unfortunately, Baha'u'llah is no longer around and his heirs have for the moment at least disregarded this key teaching, and want to establish some orthodoxy that everyone must assent to or else be accused of being 'not a Baha'i' or 'a humanist secularist'. Presumably at some stations on the path, secular humanism is the natural perspective of those at that rung of the ladder. What is wrong with that? Attacking them won't raise them higher on the ladder, to a superior maqam. The point is that you will never get people to agree on those issues, and you can't scare them into being silent on them, so one just has to be philosophical, and say, to each his own. Baha'u'llah expected that this toleration would exist *among Baha'is*, *within* community, but for the most part this expectation has been dashed. In the interests of fairness I have never said that Baha'u'llah was 'only a philosopher.' Nor am I a materialist in the philosophical technical sense of the term. I am an Emersonian. It has been argued that Emersonian religion ("expressive individuality") has become the majority type in the U.S., so I am in numerous company, at least, and, I think, good company, as well. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan At 02:58 PM 7/12/98 -0700, Burl Barer wrote: >At 01:12 PM 7/12/98 -0400, Juan Cole wrote: > >Dear Juan: > >Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking explanation. >Mirza Husain Ali never claimed omniscience for himself, rather Baha'u'llah >(in the Station of the Glory of God, the Manifestation of the Will of God) >clarifies the mystic union that links Him to the Source of His Revelation >-- a Revelation revealed in words -- thusly: > >"..my call is Thy call, and my Revelation Thy Revelation, and my self Thy >Self, and my Cause Thy Cause, and my behest Thy behest, and my Being Thy >Being, and my sovereignty Thy sovereignty, and my glory Thy Glory, and my >power Thy power." > >Consider also this from the Bab: > ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 9:07 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Rights of CBs According to Mark A. Foster: > since, > as you indicate, one would need to be party to a covenant > before > one could break it, they are sometimes considered as having Dear Mark and all, As the documents make clear, the person in question had resigned from the Faith. Similarly, my friend Matthew Cromer has explained in various forums that after his resignation, his former LSA was extremely avid to remove his voting rights-- as if he had any to remove! Only the threat of legal action (as I understand and recall) caused them to cease their harassment. Cheers, Paul ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Zutetflute@aol.com[SMTP:Zutetflute@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 9:28 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB censorship Hi Fred I found this letter from Mr. Boatright in my files and thought it might be something you could put in the SRB censorship section of your webpage. Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i. Andree Subj: Re: Beginning of 1000 years Date: 97-12-22 18:11:17 EST From: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com To: zutetflute@aol.com (Zutetflute) Dear Andree, Are you a Baha'i? The councellors and the protection board are asking the moderators to be very very careful on this subject. Remeber that this is the one and only place in the writings where an interpretation _other_ than the clear, evident, literal meaning is excluded in the writings themselves. Normally, I would not hesitate to post this, but I am _asking_ you to include the 1000 year quote along with this, and perhaps explain how you can justify _any_ reading other than the clear, evident, stupid simple literal meaning. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > > "It is evident unto thee that the Birds of Heaven and Doves of Eternity speak > a two-fold language. One language, the outward language, is devoid of > allusiions and unveiled, that it may be a guiding light and a beaconing light > whereby wayfarers may advance into the realm of eternal reunion. Such are the > unveiled traditions and evident verses already mentioned. The other language > is veiled and concealed, so that whatever lies hidden in the heart of the > malevolent may be made manifest and their innermost being to be disclosed. > Thus hath Sadiq, son of Muhammad, spoken:"God will verily test and sift them." > This is the divine standard, this is the Touchstone of god, wherewith He > proveth His servants. None apprehendeth the meaning of these utterances except > them whose hearts are assured, whose souls have found favour with God, and > whose minds are detached from all else save Him. In such utterances, the > literal meaning, AS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PEOPLE, is not what what hath > been intended." Kitab-i-Iqan,m pp 254-255. > > I think it behooves us to keep an open mind in all matters, and to see with our > own eyes, and not through the eyes of others. > > Andree > > >Thanks for the information. What I was referring to was the tendency for > >folks to interpret the verse about a 1,000 years as being anything but > >literal. In other words, to me, Baha'u'llah has not given us this verse > >with a hidden meaning for it appears obvious that it is to be taken > >literally. > > > >regards, > >doug > > > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from relay07.mail.aol.com (relay07.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.7]) by air16.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 18:11:16 -0500 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (topeka.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.250]) by relay07.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA00475 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:35:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from rick.cjnetworks (Port13.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.23]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08552 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:35:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199712222135.PAA08552@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: zutetflute@aol.com (Zutetflute) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:36:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Beginning of 1000 years Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19971222161401.LAA16236@ladder01.news.aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 7:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: A new consensus? & other matters (was Re: A new coalition? (Re: Re(3): arb FAQ draft 2)) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35ABC7DC.7B09@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A409C7.70A7@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >>>Roger Reini wrote (in part):I >>>> feel that a consensus would be difficult to achieve. >> >>>I concur with this... >> fglaysher wrote: >>A consensus on a FAQ isn't necessary. . . . DZO wrote: >If it were intended as an authoritative set of responses to readers >about questions that arose frequently, then I would differ. It sounds >though like you're really talking about venues for putting across a >particular viewpoint(s), in qhich case FAQ may not be the most >appropriate term (see also below). Admittedly, objectivity would be difficult for all points of view to achieve.... > >> . . . The whole point of an unmoderated >>newsgroup is to permit a variety of opinions to receive a hearing. The >>purpose of a FAQ isn't to impose one view of events. As I mentioned in >>another message that I don't see this morning on my server for some reason, >>more than one FAQ could exist and might even be preferable to only one. > >I'm not sure how multiple FAQ's or Q&A's or whatever expand the variety >of opinions expressed in the ng. It might, rather, confuse readers that >might expect from a FAQ some basically agreed on information (or at >least a fairly detached and objective overview of issues). Rather than confuse them, it, or they, would introduce new readers to the complexity of the issues and their longevity. Ditto re objectivity. > >>I intend to continue working on a FAQ and would welcome anyone's input. > >One quick comment that perhaps should have come at the front end of this >entire discussion, and that is that as I understand it, FAQ's address >questions that come up repeatedly and people get tired of answering >repeatedly (hence, of course, "Frequently Asked Questions"). In the >time I've been reading (or at least scanning) a.r.b., I haven't noticed >the questions you proposed in your draft FAQ coming up with any >frequency at all. Quite the reverse. The few questions I've started with were recently posed by someone else. There are many that I am weary of having to answer over and over and over and over again.... Hence, there is a real need for it, especially as the next interest poll approaches. > >>Let me mention here something I stated at the end of the last interest poll. >>I would be willing to consider a less involved role during the third one >since > >As I think I mentioned followiong the last t.r.b. interest poll, I think >that some new face(s) in the role of proponent(s) might be best. From >my retrospective on this issue, it seems you've done about all you can >for (and against. too, with all due respect) t.r.b. among potential >voters. > >>there was possibly a considerable advance on the part of Bahais from a >>wholesale onslaught to at least restraint demonstrating perhaps deeper >>understanding of the nature of Usenet and freedom of speech. While >>interpretations of those events will vary, I still nonetheless believe Bahai >>hatred of me is so intense, the resentment so vicious, . . . > >I have to say I'm surprised at this perception. Hatred, whether of an >individual, or a group of individuals, a nationality, a race, whatever >-- even Covenant-breakers and avowed enemies of the Cause of God -- is >prohibited in the Baha'i Teachings. Don't make me laugh.... IMHO, if one of the Friends >expresses hatred, this reveals either a deep misunderstanding of the >Baha'i spirit, or a deeper personal problem, or some combination. I refer you and others to the samples of loving Bahai hate mail on my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm In a >few instances, people have reacted hostiley to you, and one should in no >way condone these (rather treat such with a sin covering eye). A >different matter is that of disagreeing with what someone contends and/ >or how they choose to convey that -- disagreement, even strenuous, >should not be confused with hatred. As I have written before, one can >love you as the brother you are while disagreeing with what you say. > >> . . . it would be best if >>other people interested in talk.religion.bahai were at the center of >>helping Bahais make another advance to the realization that it is actually >>in their own best interest to support the creation of an unmoderated >>newsgroup, to put their votes and deeds where the glorious words of the >>Writings are.... > >With all due respect, might it not seem a bit presumptuous for an >individual to declare that s/he knows what's best for a larger group and >that they need to accept that point of view? To enter into a >discussion, even to make a proposal, it is helpful to do so with some >detachment and humility, admitting from the outset that one may actually >be wrong (or more likely have only a small piece of the truth). I suggest you and the fundamentalists at soc.religion.bahai reflect on your own advice.... > >>Chris Manvell, a week or two ago on arb, mentioned he still supported >>the creation of trb, though for different reasons from me. I note Roger >>Reini as another person who has a very extensive grasp of the situation >>having been part of the discussion for so very long now.... There are >>several other people who might contribute significantly and play >>very important parts this time.... >> >>What I am suggesting is that basically the charter for trb be updated and >>dusted off with my doing little more than submitting it and sticking to >the technical questions as much as possible on news.groups.... > >IMHO, former proponents should either function fully as proponents or >pass on that role to another(s) and stand aside as participants in the >discussion and eventual vote. But that's just one view. Since Bahais have viciously attacked me, making me the scapegoat for their intolerance, I shan't be stepping aside, but, again, am willing to play a lesser role should people genuinely committed to freedom of speech and religious conscience in the Bahai Faith come forward to work diligently to create talk.religion.bahai. I'm quite open to being merely one of several proponents. > >>The real question, to my mind, is will Bahais permit it; last time their >>preference for continuing to demonize me and talk.religion.bahai went >>unabated. My suggestion at the end of the last interest poll was >>completely ignored.... > >That "real question" might have had more relevance after the first poll. >The second poll failed, according to news.groups regulars, for lack of >interest (not enough yes votes) not because someone or group didn't >permit it... That was one interpretation, not mine, nor is it now. Also, with all due respect for your perspective, I didn't >see the "demonization" you refer to. Then you had your eyes closed, as far as I'm concerned. I did see that a number of people >(including several non-Baha'i news.groups regulars) reacted negatively >to various things you posted -- is this what you mean by "demonization"? And the opposite can be said as well. I will discuss this approach in a few minutes in response to your previous post in this thread. > >As to your suggestion being ignored, you may be right. It is possible >that people were tired of discussing the issue after the last poll and >no one felt up to dealing further with the t.r.b. issue. Perhaps now >there will be some discussion. > >One final note. I'm not keen on the use of "coalition" as it smacks of >partisanship (I'm not saying that was your intention, only commenting >that that's how the word strikes me -- a "lesser unity" arrayed perhaps >against others [and in that case being no unity at all]). Perhaps >striving for a new consensus is more to the point... I will address this too in my next message.... > >Hope this helps... > >DZO Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 7:57 AM Subject: No FAQ? Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35A3FFAE.51E2@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... Moreover, it still seems to me that the more one >tries to link agreement with the contention that s.r.b. is "censored" >(or even more controversially that there is somehow some kind of bias to >"censorship" in the Baha'i community) with voting "yes" on t.r.b., the >more one increases the chance for another failure. I for one could not >vote yes for t.r.b. if I felt that it could be construed as supporting >such allegations. One of the most striking propensities demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai. So much so, I think it is fair to say that this approach is bascially a tactic. I count more than seventeen different people on my web site who have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet you and other Bahais NEVER address their concerns but meet them with silence. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. Quite the reverse. I also believe your position above basically sets up the situation for Bahais to vote NO once again or find other ways to oppose trb should anyone dare speak their conscience about srb censorship. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. I refer you again to my web site for extensive documentation. You wish to construe a YES vote as supporting such a belief. That need not be the case. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. >>What, for instance, would these "more widely relevant issues" be? > >Here's a hasty sketch... > >A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue >for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x >Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a >non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions >for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. >As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of >evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment The "virtue" of ignoring other people's concerns? Of never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence? Of attacking through character assassination and ad hominem? Of ganging up on individuals and pounding them mercilessly? Of circling the wagons around every unseemly deed committed by the "moderators"? These are the "virtues" Bahais have demonstrated relentlessly during the last two interest polls. They are in the historical record now forever and will not go away and should never be ignored. The archives on www.dejanews.com and on my web site contain ample evidence of these Bahai "virtues" in cyberspace. You and other Bahais need to wake up to what you have really demonstrated to the world.... As a Bahai, I'm ashamed of such Bahai "virtue" and hope Bahais will seize the opportunity of the next interest poll to right their wrongs.... >>>So it would seem less problematic to say for >>>instance something like: "... there have been some questions about the >>>moderation policy on s.r.b. and/or its implementation." >> >>Quite an understatement.... Too much for me.... Avoiding the issue >>isn't possible. > >Our opinions differ on this. I don't see it as an understatement or an >avoidance of any issue. Well, Mr. Osborn, here we are.... I do, and you don't.... Now must my opinion become your opinion or else you'll vote NO? Must my opinion and experience become that of those I believe to be Bahai fundamentalists or else they'll vote NO? Thus far, you seem to suggest that no one will be permitted to speak the truth of their conscience regarding the censorship they believe they've experienced or another Bahai temper tantrum is in the offing.... >>(I say this >>>while reiterating that IMHO, if there is a problem with s.r.b. >>>moderation, it would be 1) on the human level >> >>Bad personnel? Not a policy of censorship? Odd how it's one >>bad choice after another.... > >No not "bad personnel" -- people aren't "bad." People are all to human >in application of policies etc., esp. on a volunteer, part-time basis, >and constructive criticism (even if apparently ignored) is the best way >to encourage and help each other. Censorship at soc.religion.bahai is the result of a determined policy, not merely a few aberrant individuals. That is clear to most people who have experienced or commented on it though there are individuals who are worse than others.... > >>>and 2) best adressed in a >>>consultative rather than confrontational or "opting-out" fashion.) >> >>I suggest the confrontational fashion, as you put it, was created >>by the srb moderators when THEY said NO you may not post.... >>Somethings have to be confronted. Their censorship is one of >>them. I do hope, however, there can be consultation, sharing of >>different views, on FAQ. > >A number of people have offered the suggestion that if there is a >problem with something like s.r.b., there are channels to deal with it. >Working through establshed channels can be seen as an educative and >growth process for all. IMHO a lot more could have been (& still can >be) accomplished by taking this route. In clear language, tell us about these channels and what you think can be accomplished through them. With all due respect, I fail to >see how your FAQ can help bring more light to this or any other issue at >hand. Sharing of views can happen without pretense to issuing a FAQ; >consultation can IMHO best be focused on a specific real task, like >drafting an RFD for t.r.b. when the time comes. Drafting a FAQ is a specific real task. I find it fascinating that you would think otherwise.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 8:24 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] arb FAQ draft 2 Ron, what do you believe should be done to get people on arb and elsewhere out for the next interest poll? I'm not sure I understand what you mean about stating other Usenet groups are appropriate places for discussing trb. That was done last time. All discussion though must be crossposted to news.groups or the techies will have a fit and those opposed to trb will use it against the proposal. Are you thinking of soemthing else? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] arb FAQ draft 2 >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Roger, >> >> That was almost a year ago now. I feel enough time has gone by and >> a a different situation exists. Newcomers to arb and makelist.com need >> to be updated with a lot of repetition. They often ask the same questions. >> With the third interest poll approaching, a FAQ is all the more necessary. > >Based on the results of the previous interest poll, it seems >that much work needs to be done to get the residents of ARB >to go out and vote. I would like to suggest that in the next >call for discussion, we explicitly state that we regard >relevant mainstream & alt internet newsgroups as appropriate >places for discussion of the proposal provided notification >of a discussion is posted to news.groups. In other words, we >take the wind out of the sails of the SRB moderators when >they try to ban discussion of the proposal on SRB. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 8:26 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] This email list fyi -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] This email list >Manley, Timothy/CVO wrote: >> >> Is this list for discussing the Baha'i Faith -- and the Writings of the >> Faith? >> >> Or is this list for bashing the Baha'i Faith and its followers? >> >> So far I'm afraid I've seen only the latter -- but, I have only been >> signed up for a couple of days....... > >Well, if the only mainstream newsgroup refuses to accept >these kinds of things, there will obviously be a head of >steam that has to blow off in the only forum it can get. > >Unfortunately the Baha'i communities are really loaded >with intolerance. I know many, many people who consider >themselves sincere, believing Baha'is (unlike a no >hoper like me!) who nevertheless don't attend feasts >and the like because they find the closed-minded >attitudes there just too unbearable and they don't >have the confidence to be the only person standing up >and saying "look, let's open our minds a bit!" You see, >when we join the Faith, we are full of enthusiasm and >we meet others who are ditto. But when we have a >misgiving, or a criticism, or a complaint, we have it >alone; the chances of everyone in the room having the >same problem at the same time is low. So if the >current state of affairs can't make people with >problems feel welcome, they will leave. And then if >they find a forum where others are saying the same >kinds of things they have felt, they will get >involved. It's only human nature. > >But to me the interesting question is not whether this >list is only for bashers, it is: are the accusations >being made true? Because if they are, then the mainstream >Baha'is have caused the problem in the first place. But >remember, here, unlike at SRB, you have as much right >and ability to make your views known as anyone else. >If the denizens here are way off base, tell us why. > > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 8:30 AM Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson Re: [bahai-faith] Rights of CBs -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Rights of CBs >According to Mark A. Foster: >> since, >> as you indicate, one would need to be party to a covenant >> before >> one could break it, they are sometimes considered as having > >Dear Mark and all, > >As the documents make clear, the person in question had resigned >from the Faith. Similarly, my friend Matthew Cromer has >explained in various forums that after his resignation, his >former LSA was extremely avid to remove his voting rights-- as if >he had any to remove! Only the threat of legal action (as I >understand and recall) caused them to cease their harassment. > >Cheers, >Paul >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 6:59 AM Subject: fw Zutetflute@aol.com SRB censorship -----Original Message----- From: Zutetflute@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 9:28 PM Subject: SRB censorship >Hi Fred >I found this letter from Mr. Boatright in my files and thought it might be >something you could put in the SRB censorship section of your webpage. >Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which would prompt >someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i. > >Andree > >Subj: Re: Beginning of 1000 years >Date: 97-12-22 18:11:17 EST >From: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) >Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com >To: zutetflute@aol.com (Zutetflute) > >Dear Andree, > >Are you a Baha'i? The councellors and the protection board are >asking the moderators to be very very careful on this subject. >Remeber that this is the one and only place in the writings where an >interpretation _other_ than the clear, evident, literal meaning is >excluded in the writings themselves. Normally, I would not hesitate >to post this, but I am _asking_ you to include the 1000 year quote >along with this, and perhaps explain how you can justify _any_ >reading other than the clear, evident, stupid simple literal meaning. > >Rick Boatright >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai > >> >> "It is evident unto thee that the Birds of Heaven and Doves of Eternity >speak >> a two-fold language. One language, the outward language, is devoid of >> allusiions and unveiled, that it may be a guiding light and a beaconing >light >> whereby wayfarers may advance into the realm of eternal reunion. Such are >the >> unveiled traditions and evident verses already mentioned. The other >language >> is veiled and concealed, so that whatever lies hidden in the heart of the >> malevolent may be made manifest and their innermost being to be disclosed. >> Thus hath Sadiq, son of Muhammad, spoken:"God will verily test and sift >them." >> This is the divine standard, this is the Touchstone of god, wherewith He >> proveth His servants. None apprehendeth the meaning of these utterances >except >> them whose hearts are assured, whose souls have found favour with God, and >> whose minds are detached from all else save Him. In such utterances, the >> literal meaning, AS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PEOPLE, is not what what >hath >> been intended." Kitab-i-Iqan,m pp 254-255. >> >> I think it behooves us to keep an open mind in all matters, and to see with >our >> own eyes, and not through the eyes of others. >> >> Andree >> >> >Thanks for the information. What I was referring to was the tendency for >> >folks to interpret the verse about a 1,000 years as being anything but >> >literal. In other words, to me, Baha'u'llah has not given us this verse >> >with a hidden meaning for it appears obvious that it is to be taken >> >literally. >> > >> >regards, >> >doug >> > >> > >> >> >> > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: >Received: from relay07.mail.aol.com (relay07.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.7]) by >air16.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 18:11:16 -0500 >Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (topeka.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.250]) > by relay07.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > with ESMTP id QAA00475 for ; > Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:35:56 -0500 (EST) >Received: from rick.cjnetworks (Port13.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.23]) > by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08552 > for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:35:59 -0600 (CST) >Message-Id: <199712222135.PAA08552@topeka.cjnetworks.com> >Comments: Authenticated sender is >From: "Rick Boatright" >Organization: Topeka Business Computers >To: zutetflute@aol.com (Zutetflute) >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:36:49 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Subject: Re: Beginning of 1000 years >Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com >Priority: normal >In-reply-to: <19971222161401.LAA16236@ladder01.news.aol.com> >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 7:06 AM To: Tman Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth Their explanation is false. My web site does not list links to covenant breakers. It lists a link to Yahoo! a major search engine which has an exhaustive index of sites on the Bahai Faith. People on alt.religion.bahai have pointed out that one may link from addresses regularly given on srb itself to covenant breaker sites too. Given the nature of Internet, this is inescapable. I maintain that the real motive is again to suppress knowledge of the upcoming third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai and my web site. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Tman To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: SRB ; Rick Boatright (SRB moderator) Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth >Fred, I talked to the SRB moderators. They tell me, if I understand them >correctly, that they don't want to post your signature because the email >site you offer access to via your web site advertises in your signature is >used as a platform for Covenant Breakers. My understanding of what they >said is that they will allow your post sans your signature. > >Now, Rick, if I'm mistaken in this, please let me know. > >Fred, there is no need for you to decry censorship. Requiring you to not >give access to Covenant Breakers is not censorship. > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Tman >Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 4:16 AM >Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth > > >>Tman wrote: >>> >>> I must thank Dale for the copious use of quotes from Abdu'l Baha. >>> >>> Are there any quotes of Baha'u'llah that anyone has or knows of, >regarding >>> the Virgin Birth or this related Science & Religion topic? >> >>I would mention a few but the srb "moderators" are suppressing any >>messages from me in order to prevent you from hearing about the >>existence of the sites below: >> >>-- > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 7:11 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Fran Baker little round with SRB moderators -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:12 PM Subject: little round with SRB moderators >Hi Fred, > >Here's a little annotated email exchange I thought might >interest you. Just FYI. You can reuse it if that's of >any use. > >--Fran > >================================================================ >I sent something I'd like to post to SRB to Rick Boatright, >because I know he's a moderator. Rick replied to send to another address. >================================================================ >From boatright@topeka.cjnetworks.com Mon Jul 13 10:45:42 1998 >Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (topeka.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.250]) by amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA17449 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:45:41 -0500 (CDT) >Received: from rick.cjnetworks.com (Port408.cjnetworks.com [204.233.47.139]) > by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27402 > for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:45:29 -0500 (CDT) >Message-Id: <199807131545.KAA27402@topeka.cjnetworks.com> >From: "Rick Boatright" >Organization: Topeka Business Computers >To: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu (Fran Baker) >Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:52:04 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Subject: Re: need help posting >Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com >X-Confirm-Reading-To: boatright@cjnetworks.com >X-pmrqc: 1 >Priority: normal >In-reply-to: <199807131308.IAA10748@gershwin.crhc> >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) >X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 >Content-Length: 2053 > >Send your replys to bahai-faith@bcca.org, which is the general in-box >for the moderators. > >Rick Boatright > >================================================================ >I did so. >================================================================ >From fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Mon Jul 13 11:44:39 1998 >>From fran Mon Jul 13 11:44:40 1998 >Received: from gershwin (gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.143.189]) by amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA21069; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0500 (CDT) >Sender: fran >Message-ID: <35AA3A4C.33B8@crhc.uiuc.edu> >Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:48:12 -0500 >From: Fran Baker >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: bahai-faith@bcca.org >CC: fran >Subject: When standard responses fail >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 >Content-Length: 1610 > >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Subject: Re: standard message >References: <"R50HhD.A.R3D.LBCq1"@bounty.bcca.org> > >Herbigjoe@aol.com writes: > >>Dear Star, I think you are giving the people that ask you about the above >>things mis-information: > >>1. No one say that women cannot serve on the UHJ. 'Abdu'l-Baha explains >>that >>women are exempt from serving (IMO by the Grace of God), and as promised, >>the >>reason for this provision will be "clear as the noon day" in the future. > >>2. The prayers are in English, not in gender oversensitive new American. >>When one uses "he", this is considered gender neutral in English. > >>3. There are no inheritance laws per se, only when one neglets to make a >>will, Baha'u'llah addresses intestacy in the Aqdas. > >>All of the 3 points above have been discussed on this srb in great detail. > >>IMHO, it is important to present the facts of the Faith as accurately as >>possible. > >>Regards, Joe......... > >Dear Joe, > >It is a mistake to think that if you have an answer to an objection you >have a good answer to that objection. Sometimes a pat or standard >answer is just a way of *failing to listen*. These answers may deflect >the objections in your own mind, but if they fail to satisfy the person >raising them you might learn something by making the effort to >understand why this is so. > >I am assuming here that you are interested in having a genuine >discussion (which is ideally approached with an open mind) and not just >a teaching conversation (which driven by the missionary agenda). > >Sincerely, >Fran > >"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four." Orwell > >================================================================ >I got this response. Bogus? I don't really know. >I'm pretty sure I've seen lots of posting that don't >mention the Baha'i teachings per se. >================================================================ >From smsmith@cybertrails.com Tue Jul 14 14:19:18 1998 >Received: from presley.cybertrails.com (qmailr@presley.cybertrails.com [162.42.150.35]) by amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA21530 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:19:16 -0500 (CDT) >Received: (qmail 12580 invoked from network); 14 Jul 1998 19:21:45 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO 6) (162.42.133.167) > by presley.cybertrails.com with SMTP; 14 Jul 1998 19:21:45 -0000 >Message-ID: <009101bdaf4b$9c803da0$a7852aa2@6> >From: "S. Michele Smith" >To: "Fran Baker" >Cc: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" >Subject: Re: When standard responses fail >Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:12:49 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 >X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 >Content-Length: 2194 > >Dear Fran, > >Your submission is being returned with the request that you make mention of the >Baha'i Teachings somewhere in your response as per charter. That way it can be >posted. As it is now, it appears to be simply a personal message to Joe. > >Thank you for your understanding. > >Sincerely, >Michele Smith >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai >-----Original Message----- >[deleted] > >================================================================ >I tried again. >================================================================ >From - Tue Jul 14 14:58:11 1998 >Message-ID: <35ABB853.36D8@crhc.uiuc.edu> >Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:58:11 -0500 >From: Fran Baker >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: "S. Michele Smith" >CC: Baha'i SRB Moderators fran >Subject: Re: When standard responses fail >References: <009101bdaf4b$9c803da0$a7852aa2@6> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 >Content-Length: 3717 > >Dear Michelle, > >This is the best I can do. Hope it is good enough. I at least >tried to make it less personal to Joe. I think it is relevant >to Baha'is and refers in a very general way to your scriptures, >of which I am largely ignorant. I am interested in the nature >of discourse about beliefs in general. > >Thanks for your consideration, >Fran > >S. Michele Smith wrote: >> >> Dear Fran, >> >> Your submission is being returned with the request that you make mention of the >> Baha'i Teachings somewhere in your response as per charter. That way it can be >> posted. As it is now, it appears to be simply a personal message to Joe. >> >> Thank you for your understanding. > >> >> Sincerely, >> Michele Smith >> co-moderator >> soc-religion-bahai >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fran Baker >> To: bahai-faith@bcca.org >> Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu >> Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 11:47 AM >> Subject: When standard responses fail >> >> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >> Subject: Re: standard message >> References: <"R50HhD.A.R3D.LBCq1"@bounty.bcca.org> >> >> Herbigjoe@aol.com writes: >> >> >Dear Star, I think you are giving the people that ask you about the above >> >things mis-information: >> >> >1. No one say that women cannot serve on the UHJ. 'Abdu'l-Baha explains >> >that >> >women are exempt from serving (IMO by the Grace of God), and as promised, >> >the >> >reason for this provision will be "clear as the noon day" in the future. >> >> >2. The prayers are in English, not in gender oversensitive new American. >> >When one uses "he", this is considered gender neutral in English. >> >> >3. There are no inheritance laws per se, only when one neglets to make a >> >will, Baha'u'llah addresses intestacy in the Aqdas. >> >> >All of the 3 points above have been discussed on this srb in great detail. >> >> >IMHO, it is important to present the facts of the Faith as accurately as >> >possible. >> >> >Regards, Joe......... >> >> Dear Joe, >> >> It is a mistake to think that if you have an answer to an objection you >> have a good answer to that objection. Sometimes a pat or standard >> answer is just a way of *failing to listen*. These answers may deflect >> the objections in your own mind, but if they fail to satisfy the person >> raising them you might learn something by making the effort to >> understand why this is so. >> >> I am assuming here that you are interested in having a genuine >> discussion (which is ideally approached with an open mind) and not just >> a teaching conversation (which driven by the missionary agenda). >This is something I think all Bahai's who engage in teaching >conversations would benefit from keeping in mind. Many people are quick >to tune you out the minute they sense that the conversation is not "for >real" but for the sole purpose of converting them, i.e., that you are >not really willing to examine your own beliefs as you ask them to >examine theirs. Sorry, I can't make reference to Baha'i scripture, but >it interests me that often missionaries (of whatever group) don't >realize why they are not more effective, and I am suggesting one reason >they fail. This might be of interest to people wishing to be more >effective. It is important, though, not to pretend to be open minded, >but to really strive to be. I admit I have seen conflicting evidence >from people citing Baha'i scripture as to whether this is something >Baha'is are supposed to do in general (be open-minded about religious >matters). Perhaps being unable to doubt your position is a hallmark of >a religious as opposed to a philosophical viewpoint. >> >> Sincerely, >> Fran >> >> "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four." Orwell >================================================================ >So far, nothing, and of course the discussion is long gone. >================================================================ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: Re: No FAQ? Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35AD4EEC.258C@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... > My point is that forbearance and constructive criticism would >achieve the best results. In the best of all worlds, such input could >help make the group "ever advancing" -- always getting better -- which >would seem to be in everyone's interest. You're asking for "forebearance" of srb censorship? I don't believe censorship should be tolerated, only condemned and resisted.... And I'm not interested in "reforming" soc.religion.bahai.... Given the fundamentalism of so many people involved there, such attempts to me are futile.... > >As to not addressing the criticisms you mention, it would seem that >these should be addressed to the s.r.b. moderators (and if serious >enough to the Baha'i institutions). Addressing anything to the srb moderators is a waste of time. I have repeatedly appealed to the UHJ about the complicity of the BCCA in opposing the last two interest polls.... It is not my place (or that of any >other third party) to judge the validity of others' impressions from >their experiences. I've only commented on the conclusions some such as >yourself have drawn from these (i.e., that moderation = censorship) and >the approach of putting that point of view front and center in >reproposing t.r.b. I would say, SRB moderation=censorship.... SRB has placed the issue front and center by continually censoring people. > >Is the point establishment of t.r.b., or proving a point against the >moderators and moderation on s.r.b.? As long as it seems to be more the >latter, the negativity would seem to me to be a factor that will turn >people off (no, not to vote "no," but to turn away). Far from a >"tactic" or whatever, it is a natural response of many. You're ignoring the pertinent questions below in my original message, following the tactic, if you will.... What's to prevent them from construing their Yes vote for other than censorship reasons? I've stated such is possible. You seem to wish though to make the context one in which NO ONE may mention or vote due to the censorship they or others have experienced or believe exists on srb. > >This is not to say that an individual could not vote in favor of t.r.b. >because s/he is critical of moderation on s.r.b. But that it is >unnecessary to implicitly make the question of the interest poll: yes >or no on "Create t.r.b. because of censorship on s.r.b." (In polling, >for instance, a basic principle is not to ask double questions.) I'm not IMPLICITLY making the interest poll one over whether or not srb is censored. Most fairminded people recognize that it is.... > >As for your proposed FAQ, it seemed to be more a way of getting out a >particular interpretation of events than a response to an overwhelming >number of repeated questions on a.r.b. Sorry if that is inaccurate. A FAQ could include more than one point of view. I've said that. I believe it is inaccurate. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >Hope this helps. > >DZO > >> much so, I think it is fair to say that this approach is bascially a >> tactic. I count more than seventeen different people on my web >> site who have posted messages explaining their experience >> with srb censorship yet you and other Bahais NEVER address >> their concerns but meet them with silence. Ignoring such charges >> will not make them go away. Quite the reverse. I also believe your >> position above basically sets up the situation for Bahais to vote >> NO once again or find other ways to oppose trb should anyone >> dare speak their conscience about srb censorship. NO ONE >> has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; >> the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing >> droves of people for years. There are many people who >> believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai >> community as it exists today. I refer you again to my web site >> for extensive documentation. You wish to construe a YES vote >> as supporting such a belief. That need not be the case. There >> are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. >> >> >>What, for instance, would these "more widely relevant issues" be? >> > >> >Here's a hasty sketch... >> >> > >> >A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue >> >for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x >> >Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a >> >non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions >> >for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. >> >As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of >> >evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment >> >> The "virtue" of ignoring other people's concerns? Of never responding >> analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence? >> Of attacking through character assassination and ad hominem? Of >> ganging up on individuals and pounding them mercilessly? Of circling >> the wagons around every unseemly deed committed by the >> "moderators"? These are the "virtues" Bahais have demonstrated >> relentlessly during the last two interest polls. They are in the historical >> record now forever and will not go away and should never be ignored. >> The archives on www.dejanews.com and on my web site contain >> ample evidence of these Bahai "virtues" in cyberspace. You and >> other Bahais need to wake up to what you have really demonstrated >> to the world.... As a Bahai, I'm ashamed of such Bahai "virtue" and >> hope Bahais will seize the opportunity of the next interest poll to >> right their wrongs.... >> >> >>>So it would seem less problematic to say for >> >>>instance something like: "... there have been some questions about the >> >>>moderation policy on s.r.b. and/or its implementation." >> >> >> >>Quite an understatement.... Too much for me.... Avoiding the issue >> >>isn't possible. >> > >> >Our opinions differ on this. I don't see it as an understatement or an >> >avoidance of any issue. >> >> Well, Mr. Osborn, here we are.... I do, and you don't.... Now must my >> opinion become your opinion or else you'll vote NO? Must my opinion >> and experience become that of those I believe to be Bahai >> fundamentalists or else they'll vote NO? Thus far, you seem to >> suggest that no one will be permitted to speak the truth of their >> conscience regarding the censorship they believe they've >> experienced or another Bahai temper tantrum is in the offing.... >> >> >>(I say this >> >>>while reiterating that IMHO, if there is a problem with s.r.b. >> >>>moderation, it would be 1) on the human level >> >> >> >>Bad personnel? Not a policy of censorship? Odd how it's one >> >>bad choice after another.... >> > >> >No not "bad personnel" -- people aren't "bad." People are all to human >> >in application of policies etc., esp. on a volunteer, part-time basis, >> >and constructive criticism (even if apparently ignored) is the best way >> >to encourage and help each other. >> >> Censorship at soc.religion.bahai is the result of a determined >> policy, not merely a few aberrant individuals. That is clear to most >> people who have experienced or commented on it though there >> are individuals who are worse than others.... >> >> > >> >>>and 2) best adressed in a >> >>>consultative rather than confrontational or "opting-out" fashion.) >> >> >> >>I suggest the confrontational fashion, as you put it, was created >> >>by the srb moderators when THEY said NO you may not post.... >> >>Somethings have to be confronted. Their censorship is one of >> >>them. I do hope, however, there can be consultation, sharing of >> >>different views, on FAQ. >> > >> >A number of people have offered the suggestion that if there is a >> >problem with something like s.r.b., there are channels to deal with it. >> >Working through establshed channels can be seen as an educative and >> >growth process for all. IMHO a lot more could have been (& still can >> >be) accomplished by taking this route. >> >> In clear language, tell us about these channels and what you think can >> be accomplished through them. >> >> With all due respect, I fail to >> >see how your FAQ can help bring more light to this or any other issue at >> >hand. Sharing of views can happen without pretense to issuing a FAQ; >> >consultation can IMHO best be focused on a specific real task, like >> >drafting an RFD for t.r.b. when the time comes. >> >> Drafting a FAQ is a specific real task. I find it fascinating that you >> would think otherwise.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 8:03 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience Can you reformat it so that it's easier to read? So that the lines don't wrap. Repost it here then and I'll forward it to alt.religion.bahai if you want.... -----Original Message----- From: Bill Brewer To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience BB: It is probably appropriate to occasionally repost this history of Covenant-Breaking: Note: first is a letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States regarding the importance of commitment to the covenant. Following that is a letter from the Universal House of Justice on covenant-breaking, and an article about "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him" prepared on its behalf. Scanned and proofread by David House; formatted by Jonah Winters Letter from the US NSA on the Covenant National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States October 14, 1997 To All Local Spiritual Assemblies, Baha'i Groups and College Clubs Dear Baha'i Friends, The spirits of the American Baha'i community were revived and our commitment strengthened through study of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah earlier this year when we gathered during the period of the Baha'i Fast for personal reflection on that theme. Dear Friends, we ask your help, once again, in focusing the attention of the American Baha'i community on the Covenant, "the potent instrument by which individual belief in Him is translated into constructive deeds," by organizing gatherings - large and small - for that purpose during the period from November 12 (Birth of Baha'u'llah) through November 26, 1997 (Day of the Covenant). Our daily exertions to advance the process of entry by troops depend, first and foremost, on the degree of our firmness in the Covenant. Our capacity to win the whole-hearted allegiance of new believers, to consolidate our ever-expanding Baha'i communities, and to withstand the inevitable attacks and crises that are a natural part of this process, depends on our ability to draw on our "love for Baha'u'llah, the power of the Covenant, [and] the dynamics of prayer...." These are the "transformative forces" that "operate" on our souls as we "strive to behave in accordance with the divine laws and principles." We have been assured by the Counselors that the Auxiliary Board members stand ready to support your efforts to conduct these gatherings. Please call upon them. Also, we have included a brief list of references which, in addition to the Sacred Writings and the letters of Shoghi Effendi, will facilitate your study. "The Flow of Divine Authority: Scriptural authority for the Universal House of Justice to function infallibly without the presence of a Guardian," an article written by Mr. G. Brent Poirier, can be found as a special pull-out section in the August 1, 1996 issue of the American Baha'i. [Note: article is also available here.] The article, "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him" is enclosed for easy reference. Our hearts and prayers are with you always. National Spiritual Assembly of The Baha'is. of The United States cc: Continental Counselors Serving North America (w/enclosure) Auxiliary Board Members (w/enclosure) Reference Materials 1 Letters on the subject of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice dated October 6, 1963, March 9, 1965, May 27, 1966, and December 7, 1969 -- all have been published in Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1963-1986. They are also found in Wellspring of Guidance, and Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1968-1973. 2 The Covenant of Baha'u'llah by Adib Taherzadeh, especially chapter 8, "The Arch-breaker of Baha'u'llah's Covenant"; chapter 34, "The Chief Stewards"; and chapter 35, "The Universal House of Justice". 3 "The Power of the Covenant, Part II" published by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada. 4 "The Flow of Divine Authority: Scriptural authority for the Universal House of Justice to function infallibly without the presence of a Guardian," an article by G. Brent Poirier. (August 1, 1996 issue of the American Baha'i). 5 "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him" (January 31, 1997 from the Universal House of Justice) Letter from the House on Covenant-Breaking The Universal House of Justice Baha'i World Centre Department of the Secretariat 31 January 1997 To National Spiritual Assemblies Dear Baha'i Friends, In recent years advertisements have occasionally appeared in newspapers in various countries, placed by the Covenant-breaker Joel Bray Marangella, seeking to revive his claim to be the "third Guardian of the Faith." This activity could provoke questions among the friends, especially those unfamiliar with the developments associated with the actions of Mason Remey, who broke the Covenant by proclaiming himself the successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian. The Universal House of Justice has therefore directed us to send you a copy of a document containing background information on these developments, entitled "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him", which was prepared for its files some years ago. You are free to use it now or in the future, in any manner circumstances may require, to provide the friends with the facts it contains. With loving Baha'i greetings, For Department of the Secretariat Enclosure cc: The Hands of the Cause of God International Teaching Centre Continental Counsellors Article from the House on Covenant-Breaking Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him Introduction In addition to explaining the nature and dangers of violation of the Covenant, Shoghi Effendi several times reviewed briefly the fates of individuals and groups who had surrendered to this worst of human failings. Reflection on the consequences to those who seek to undermine the unity of the Cause helps believers, he said, to appreciate more deeply the protecting power of Baha'u'llah's Covenant. In the perspective of the three decades that have passed since Charles Mason Remey's violation of the Covenant, it is instructive to review the consequences to those who followed him down this barren path. I. Covenant-Breaking The Nature of Covenant-breaking What is Covenant-breaking? In a letter to an individual dated 23 March 1975, the Universal House of Justice wrote: When a person declares his acceptance of Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation of God he becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. If he then turns round and attacks Baha'u'llah or the Central Institution of the Faith he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that person to see the illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in accordance with the instructions of Baha'u'llah Himself, be shunned as a Covenant- breaker. The personal failings that lead people to violate the Covenant to which they know they have committed themselves have been described by the Guardian as "the blind hatred, the unbounded presumption, the incredible folly, the abject perfidy, the vaulting ambition" which, in varying degrees, afflict the persons concerned. While some of these may have been duped by others, 'Abdu'l-Baha has said of them: These do not doubt the validity of the Covenant, but selfish motives have dragged them to this condition. It is not that they do not know what they do--they are perfectly aware and still they exhibit opposition. The Danger It Poses The Master has warned that, if unchecked, Covenant-breaking would "utterly destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and render of no account all efforts exerted in the past". He sets this warning in the context of the fact that the central purpose of Baha'u'llah's Revelation is to create unity: Were it not for the protecting power of the Covenant to guard the impregnable fort of the Cause of God, there would arise among the Baha'is, in one day, a thousand different sects as was the case in former ages. Apart from the danger that Covenant-breaking poses to the development of the Cause, it represents a spiritual contagion threatening the well-being of the individual believer because of its subtle appeal to the human ego. 'Abdu'l-Baha called for the complete exclusion from the Baha'i community of anyone found to be infected with the virus of Covenant-breaking, and urged all believers to shun any contact whatever with the persons involved. The Effect on Those Involved In reviewing the development of the Faith, the Guardian several times cited examples of how these "movements, sponsored by deluded, self- seeking adventurers, find themselves, sooner or later, enmeshed in the machinations of their authors, are buried in shame, and sink eventually into complete oblivion". He adds: The extinction of the influence precariously exerted by some of these enemies, the decline that has set in in the fortunes of others, the sincere repentance expressed by still others and their subsequent reinstatement and effectual participation in the teaching and administrative activities of the Faith, constitute in themselves sufficient evidence of the unconquerable power and invincible spirit which animate those who stand identified with, and loyally carry out the provisions and injunctions of, the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l- Baha. A Cleansing Process Regarding a group of Covenant-breakers in the United States which was later to break up and disappear following the deaths of the two individuals who had created it, Shoghi Effendi wrote: The schism which their foolish leaders had contrived so sedulously to produce within the Faith, will soon, to their utter amazement, come to be regarded as a process of purification, a cleansing agency, which, far from decimating the ranks of its followers, reinforces its indestructible unity, and proclaims anew to a world, skeptical or indifferent, the cohesive strength of the institutions of that Faith, the incorruptibility of its purposes and principles, and the recuperative powers inherent in its community life. II. Mason Remey's Defection The Hands' Proclamation on the Guardianship When news of the Guardian's passing was received at the Baha'i World Centre on the evening of 4 November 1957, Shoghi Effendi's apartment was immediately locked and guarded so that no one could have access until the Hands of the Cause of God would have time to gather in the Holy Land, which they did shortly after the Guardian's funeral. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament is explicit in stating how the Guardian was to appoint his successor: He [Shoghi Effendi] is the expounder of the words of God and after him will succeed the first-born of his lineal descendants.... O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first- born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words: "The child is a secret essence of its sire," that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him. The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons... The election of these nine must be carried either unanimously or by majority from the company of the Hands of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor. As soon as 26 of the 27 Hands of the Cause had gathered in the Holy Land (Mrs. Corinne True, whose advanced age and health had prevented her coming, subsequently signed affidavits declaring her support for the various actions her fellow Hands took), they designated nine of their number to enter the Guardian's apartment and search for any document he might have left behind. Following their report, all the Hands, including Charles Mason Remey, signed a document stating that Shoghi Effendi had passed away "without having appointed his successor...." From the first conclave of the Hands, gathered in Bahji at that time, a proclamation was issued "To the Baha'is of East and West" announcing that, as "The Aghsan (branches) one and all are either dead or have been declared violators of the Covenant by the Guardian", it was apparent "that no successor to Shoghi Effendi could have been appointed by him...." Calling on the believers to unite in completing the Guardian's Ten Year Crusade, the Hands pointed out that, in due course, the Baha'i world would elect "the Universal House of Justice, that Supreme Body upon which infallibility, as the Master's Testament assures us, is divinely conferred": When that divinely ordained Body comes into existence, all the conditions of the Faith can be examined anew and the measures necessary for its future operation determined in consultation with the Hands of the Cause. Mason Remey again joined his fellow Hands in signing this second formal statement that there was no successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of God. Mason Remey Is Expelled Despite his written affirmations in 1957 that Shoghi Effendi had appointed no successor and could not have appointed one, Remey himself laid claim to this station in a "Proclamation" of April 1960 declaring that he was the "Second Guardian". He based this spurious claim on the fact that he had been named president of the appointed International Baha'i Council. When he refused to renounce his attempt to thus seize control of the Cause, the Hands of the Cause expelled him from the Faith as a violator of the Covenant. Shortly thereafter a number of believers in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere who had accepted his claim were likewise expelled from the Faith, among them John Carré, Donald Harvey, Joel Marangella, Reginald King, and Leland Jensen. All of these would later play major roles in provoking the series of conflicts that were to hopelessly divide the remnant of Remey's followers. Mason Remey Dies In April 1974 the Universal House of Justice advised the Baha'i world: Charles Mason Remey whose arrogant attempt usurp Guardianship after passing Shoghi Effendi led to his expulsion from ranks faithful has died in Florence Italy in hundredth year of his life buried without religious rites abandoned by erstwhile followers. History this pitiable defection by one who had received great honours from both Master and Guardian constitutes yet another example futility all attempts undermine impregnable Covenant Cause Baha'u'llah. III. Divisions Among Remey's Followers "National Spiritual Assembly under the Guardianship" Basing themselves on Remey's defection, a group in the United States calling themselves "Baha'is under the Guardianship" came together in New Mexico in 1961-62 and, in April 1963, formed what they called the "National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States under the Hereditary Guardianship". A similar body was created that same month by a group in Pakistan, but soon broke up. The New Mexico group incorporated itself in March 1964, and brought legal suit against the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, claiming to be the rightful owners of the Wilmette Temple property as well as to represent the authorized voice of the Baha'i Faith in the United States. The legitimate National Spiritual Assembly filed a counter-claim against this group for trademark infringement, and later secured an injunction prohibiting them from the use of established Bah i terminology or otherwise infringing the National Assembly's rights under civil law. As the New Mexico group was preparing for a second trial, Remey suddenly directed them to withdraw from the proceedings "regardless of the consequences". Shortly thereafter, Remey ordered the Santa Fe group's "National Assembly" to be dissolved. The legal challenge to the rights of the Cause in the United States came to an end at this point. Remey's "Second International Baha'i Council" Remey now created (21 September 1964) what he called a "Second International Baha'i Council". He appointed to the presidency of this body one Joel Marangella, an American believer living in France, who had been an early supporter of Remey and had been expelled from the Faith by the Hands of the Cause on 3 August 1960. Since Remey had sought to base his own claim to the Guardianship on his position as president of the International Baha'i Council created by Shoghi Effendi, this action on his part appeared to give Marangella the leading position among Remey's followers. That serious conflicts were developing among the band of Covenant-breakers is apparent, however, from the fact that, on 18 October 1966, Remey abruptly dissolved this "Council" and ordered Marangella, as its former President, to "turn over to me such records as you have of the second Council that no longer exists". The apparent effect of this action, which deprived Marangella of his leading role, was to increase rather than subdue the differences of opinion that had appeared in the group. On 29 January 1967 Remey complained that "Some friends have started the report that the Guardian is loosing [sic] his mind and that someone is controlling him...." The Appointment of Donald Harvey On 15 May 1967, Remey formally appointed one of his followers, Donald Harvey, to succeed him at his death as "third Guardian of the Faith". Harvey, an American Baha'i also resident in France at the time of Remey's defection, had been among the first group of Covenant-breakers. During the following year Remey appointed five of an intended "twenty-four elders" who would "administer the Faith of Baha'u'llah" in cooperation with Harvey. Subsequently, however, Remey dissolved the body of elders, as he had the earlier organizations, without having completed the promised appointments. Harvey, who remained Remey s appointed successor, took no action either before or after Remey's death to exercise the powers thus conferred on him. He died in 1991 without appointing a successor of his own. His various letters disclaimed any interest in organization, saying that religious faith was a matter purely for the individual. The Claim of Joel Marangella Suddenly, on 12 November 1969, Marangella announced that he rather than Harvey should be regarded as Remey's legitimate successor. According to Marangella, Remey had several years earlier (December 1961) sent him a sealed letter with a covering note indicating that Marangella would "know when to break the seal". Marangella said that shortly after his appointment as President of the "Second International Baha'i Council" he had opened this envelope, to discover a brief note, signed by Remey, instructing him to "tell the Baha'i World that I appoint you to be the third Guardian of the Baha'i Faith". Marangella, however, had hitherto taken no action on this instruction. Marangella's excuse for ignoring Remey's formal appointment of Harvey as his successor was that Remey was exhibiting irrational behaviour. Remey had by this time begun attacking Shoghi Effendi, declaring that the Administrative Order represented only the organizing of "the Baha'i Faith" and must be "dismantled", and that Remey now considered himself to be the "first" Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Having made his announcement, Marangella went on to create what he called a "National Bureau of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith". Thereafter, Harvey and Marangella, each claiming to be Remey's legitimate successor, largely ignored one another's existence. The Role of John Carré By this time other contenders for leadership were pressing supposed rights of their own. John Carré, a prolific writer, had been one of Remey's earliest supporters and had been expelled as a Covenant-breaker in 1961. }i.e. had originally promoted Remey's claims to the Guardianship by sending a stream of letters to Baha'is whose addresses he had. As the dispute over the leadership of Remey's following broke into the open, however, Carré suddenly emerged as a spokesman for the bizarre and entirely unrelated claims of one Jamshid Ma'ani. The latter, an Iranian pioneer in Indonesia, had announced himself to be "the One Who creates the Messengers at every instant". When Ma'ani began to show signs of mental illness, requiring his hospitalization in Tihran, Carré abandoned this interest, too, appearing later under the pseudonym "John Christofil" and writing as the alleged spokesman of various organizations, including "House of Light" and "House of Mankind". In this new capacity, Carré focused his attention increasingly on the subject of "catastrophic events" that would appear before the end of the century and would prepare the way for a "Third" Manifestation of God. The Intervention of Reginald King Meanwhile, in the United States, two more Covenant-breaking factions had emerged and were bitterly denouncing one another. The first of these was led by Reginald ("Rex") King, who had been elected secretary of the short- lived New Mexico "National Assembly", dissolved by Remey in 1964. Unhappy about Remey's resistance to his leadership role in the United States, King eventually went to Italy where Remey was living, and had an apparently acrimonious meeting with him. Following this encounter, Remey issued a letter denouncing King: "his station to be ever and eternally that of Satan for evermore" (13 September 1969). King switched his allegiance to Marangella when the latter advanced his own claims two months later. This relationship, however, also soon broke down. King decided that Marangella had made "a number of faulty 'interpretations' of the Writings", and declared that Marangella "had ceased to fulfill the requirements of the office of guardian". He argued, indeed, that "neither Mason Remey nor Joel Marangella had in truth ever been guardians... because of the lack of lineal descendancy" (i.e. from Baha'u'llah). Harvey's position in the enterprise was ignored. What Remey had actually been, King said, was "a regent", and King came to the "realization" that he himself "was in actuality the Second Regent...." Harvey and Marangella paid no more attention to this claim than they had to those of one another or of Carré, and King died on 1 April 1977, leaving whatever rights he believed he had to a "Council" consisting of members of his own family. The Case of Leland Jensen King's long struggle for leadership of Remey's followers in the United States had, however, paralleled that of yet another claimant, Leland Jensen. A dispute between the two men had broken out in 1963 when both of them had been members of the New Mexico "National Assembly... under the Hereditary Guardianship". Jensen had accused King of having "gained control" of the United States group, and King had thereupon proposed to set up a "Baha'i court" to have Jensen "thrown out of the Baha'i Faith". It had been Remey's resistance to this latter manoeuvre that had begun King's disaffection from him. The emergence of Jensen marks a further deterioration in the moral character of the group following Remey. After taking up residence in Missoula, Montana in 1964 to avoid a disastrous flood predicted by Remey, Jensen was convicted in 1969 of "lewd and lascivious" behavior and was sentenced to Montana State Prison. There, Jensen had converted several fellow inmates to his claim that an angelic visitor had told him he was "Joshua". After serving his sentence, he began travelling throughout the United States in an effort to bring Remey's remaining American followers to his own peculiar interpretations of religious truth. (Jensen claimed, for example, to be not only "Joshua" and "the return of Jesus", but also the "embryonic" Universal House of Justice.) These activities suffered a severe setback in May 1980 when Jensen's widely predicted "end of the world" failed to materialize despite his changing the date of this event three different times (29 April, 7 May, 22-23 May 1980). Although some of his closer associates and family members continued their support of him, the majority of Jensen's followers abandoned him. Attempts to Involve Giuseppe Pepe Perhaps the strangest development in this long and confused history was one centering on a person who was neither a member of the Faith nor had taken any role in the activities of the various Covenant-breakers. On an earlier visit to Florence, Italy, Remey had become acquainted with a young man named Giuseppe Pepe, who later served as his secretary/companion when Remey settled in Florence following his expulsion. Eventually, Pepe was legally adopted by Remey. It was he who, through the kind assistance of the American consulate in Florence, arranged for Remey s burial in 1974. To his surprise and distress, Jensen seized upon this adoptive relationship to announce, in an open letter, that he (Pepe) was "the Crown Prince", the legitimate successor of Remey as "Fourth Guardian". What Pepe must do to secure this station was to permit himself to "be coronated King of the Kingdom by the High Priest...." The strong suggestion was that the said "High Priest" was Jensen. When his protests were ignored, and the Covenant-breakers continued to use his name in their broadsheets and correspondence, Pepe wrote to a Baha'i institution whose address he had to set the record straight. The actions of the Covenant-breakers had been undertaken, he said, without his permission, and repeated requests on his part that they desist had been ignored. The Current Situation With none of the leaders of the defection able to substantiate the conflicting claims they made, divisions continued to proliferate over the years. Most represented idiosyncratic agendas conceived by various individuals and largely unrelated to one another. Embroiled in charges and countercharges, abandoned by most of those who had originally taken them seriously, and entirely ignored by the Baha'i community, the various Remey factions today provide a graphic illustration of 'Abdu'l-Baha's description of Covenant-breaking over eighty years ago: These agitations of the violators are no more than the foam of the ocean, which is one of its inseparable features; but the ocean of the Covenant shall surge and shall cast ashore the bodies of the dead, for it cannot retain them. By 1991 the Remey following had largely disintegrated. Death had removed three of the principal figures: Mason Remey in 1974, Reginald King in 1977, and Remey's appointed successor, Donald Harvey, in 1991. John Carré had drifted off into esoteric religious pursuits of his own. Public disgrace and ridicule had reduced Leland Jensen's influence to that of a cult figure for two or three isolated groups in the American Midwest. Giuseppe Pepe had eventually extricated himself from further attempts to involve him in the Covenant-breakers' ambitions. Joel Marangella alone continues to press his faded claim to the position that Remey had briefly bestowed on him and then withdrawn over thirty years ago. Occasionally, he places advertisements in newspapers purporting to represent the views of a group he calls "the Orthodox Baha'i Faith". Lacking the energy and capacity to arouse interest among the public, this forlorn survivor of the Remey defection appears still to hope that he may somehow draw loyal members of the Baha'i community under his influence. That reasonably intelligent men and women should be unable--after the passage of three decades--to free themselves from the relentless undertow of folly and ambition that has drowned every hope and scheme they ever cherished is a cautionary tale indeed. The fate of those who followed Charles Mason Remey is a case study in the nature and paralyzing effect of the virus of Covenant-breaking. Notes The Power of the Covenant, Part Two (Thornhill, Ontario: National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada, 1987), pp. 7-8 Messages to America: Selected Letters and Cablegrams Addressed to the Baha'is of North America, 1932-1946 (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Committee, 1947), p. 51 Star of the West, Vol. X, p. 246; as quoted in The Power of the Covenant, Part Two, p. 11 Baha'i World Faith (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1976), pp. 357-58 Messages to America, p. 49 Messages to America, p. 50 Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1971), pp. 11-12 The Ministry of the Custodians (Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1992), p. 29 The Ministry of the Custodians, pp. 35-36, 37, 38 Baha'i News [United States ], April 1974, p. 3; as quoted in The Power of the Covenant, Part Two, p. 27 Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha (Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1982), p. 210 Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him, page 9 Return to: Baha'i Academics Resource Area main page | Search | Database of scholars | Bulletin board | Provisional translations | Compilations | Pilgrims' notes | Historical documents | Letters from the Guardian | Letters of the UHJ | Letters from NSAs | Notable talks | Books | Academic articles | Encyclopedia articles | Conference papers and scholarly talks | Essays and letters | Newspaper and magazine pieces | Court documents | Book reviews | Various resources | Other academic sites | Notes to this site | Personal pages At 03:52 AM 7/13/98 +0000, you wrote: >Frank, >You wrote: >> Yes, it is indeed a matter of conscience that prompts individuals to depart from the sans-Guardian organization. And if those individuals accept that there is a continuing line of Guardians of the Faith, they, too, will be called covenant-breakers by those whose administration is now clearly outside the provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Anyone who accepts the continuing line of Guardians, though, will be able to live with his or her conscience that the decision made is supported by the Baha'i writings. >> >We first became aware of CBs a few months ago when an issue of the American Baha'i had an article which listed SO-AND-SO of XVILLE as a covenant breaker, and reminded all Baha'is that they were to have no association with this man. Since the Baha'i writings indicated, to us, that Baha'is are kind and respectful to all, even their worst enemies, we could not imagine what this man might have done--so we called him (XVILLE was a small enough town that we could get find his number via directory assistance). What was his crime? A longstanding mainstream Baha'i, he had independently investigated the Guardianship issue and found that he agreed with the Orthodox Baha'is, and he respectfully requested a hearing before the UHJ to present his case. > >We have since found out a little more about the Guardian dispute, enough to have us believe that this issue needs a full and open hearing before the Baha'i community. But one thing we have heard little (actually nothing) about, and maybe you could enlighten us -- do the Orthodox Baha'is and sans-Guardian UHJ Baha'is practice essentially the same faith? Do they hold the same views on most issues? > >Thanks for the enlightenment. > >Samm and Rebecca > > >----- >Original Message: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/?start=542 >Start a FREE email list at https://www.FindMail.com/ >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > Bill Brewer 402-9909 Bellamy Hill Edmonton AB T5K 2B1 403-425-8859 ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 8:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Ron House Re: No FAQ? Ron, You're saying that discussion of trb should take place on srb? I fully agree but the moderators there think otherwise. Are you hoping news groupies will agree? I don't believe they'll be successful in swaying the rigid minds at headquarters.... Remember, during both the past two polls, srb imposed the Iron Curtain on any discussion of the proposal for trb. They will do it again. Indeed, it exists right now! I'm afraid they're blind over there, no matter the size of the letters, they're not going to see them.... I might mention that their suppressing my signature file has backfired on them in this context. I have now emailed over 150 posters to srb and will continue to do so regularly until the ban is removed. MANY people have thanked me for informing them of the existence of alt.religion.bahai, my web site, and so on. Also, a couple of news groupies were essential in helping me understand how to do this in such a way as not to violate any group formation rule or custom.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] arb FAQ draft 2 >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Ron, what do you believe should be done to get people >> on arb and elsewhere out for the next interest poll? >> >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean about stating >> other Usenet groups are appropriate places for >> discussing trb. That was done last time. All discussion >> though must be crossposted to news.groups or the >> techies will have a fit and those opposed to trb will >> use it against the proposal. Are you thinking of >> soemthing else? > >We have to make it abundantly clear at the outset that >discussion on SRB is proper for this proposal. >Maybe we just need to put it in bigger letters. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith - Unity Will Stop This Violence!!! It hasn't stopped the violence perpetrated by the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai against other people's consciences.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ BlinLee wrote in message <1998071220545700.QAA17398@ladder03.news.aol.com>... >The July Issue of the Baha'i Teachings Ezine, "The Harmony Grove", is now >available at >https://members.aol.com/blinlee/index.html. >Just click on The Harmony Grove link. >"......But on the whole the crisis is serving a great purpose. It is >broadening the outlook of man, teaching him to think internationally,..." >Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Baha'i Faith >Find out why Baha'u'llah is the Messenger of God for today! :) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 1998 9:50 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 19, 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 1998 9:53 AM Subject: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 19, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 1998 10:19 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology Forgive me for revising this so soon. It's occurred to me I might include some of Donald Osborn's comments & my own at the end. Donald, I can add something more negative if you want.... I would greatly appreciate input from everyone on this FAQ. arb/trb FAQ & Chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 19, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments). Frederick Glaysher: Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 1998 10:19 AM Subject: Re: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology Forgive me for revising this so soon. It's occurred to me I might include some of Donald Osborn's comments & my own at the end. Donald, I can add something more negative if you want.... I would greatly appreciate input from everyone on this FAQ. arb/trb FAQ & Chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 19, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments). Frederick Glaysher: Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. ---------- From: FindMail[SMTP:support-listowner@findmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 1:18 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Your FindMail List Dear List Owner: Thank you for creating a list with FindMail's MakeList service, which provides free e-mail list hosting and makes it possible to read e-mail lists on the Web. We hope you find this service useful. Many list owners have asked us for Web access statistics for their lists on FindMail. In this message, we provide you these stats for your list. We'd also like to keep you in the loop about some of the new features we offer. [If you do not want to receive occasional announcements from FindMail, please send an e-mail message to listowners-unsubscribe@makelist.com, and you will not receive any further announcements from us.] You have the following list on FindMail: bahai-faith@MakeList.com archived at https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith LIST ARCHIVE TRAFFIC ///////////////////////////////////////////// The following information is for the months of May, June, and July (through July 15): Number of archived messages accessed on the Web (page views): bahai-faith May 1712 June 2763 July 2238 These stats will also be available through your list manager interface at https://www.findmail.com/webmlm NEW FEATURES ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// We have added a number of features in the past weeks. Lots more features you'll like are in the pipeline -- please stay tuned for a whole new level of features soon! In the list manager interface, you can now: + customize a "Welcome Message" that new subscribers receive when you add or invite them. + set the default reply-to address so that messages are sent back either to the whole list or only to the message's sender. + change the e-mail address of the list manager + access Frequently Answered Questions (FAQs) in Spanish, French, and German, thanks to the translations provided by some of our users (Thanks!). Also, international fonts are now better supported, and attachments are fully supported both in lists and in the archive. ENSURING RELIABILITY ///////////////////////////////////////////// Enthusiasm for our MakeList service has been growing so rapidly that we have invested in a substantial upgrade of our systems infrastructure in order to offer quick, dependable service as we scale to millions of users. In making the transition to this new infrastructure, we have had delivery delays for several lists in the past week. In the upcoming week, there may be similar delays for some lists. Please understand that we are working to minimize the impact of the remaining changes. We appreciate your patience, and look forward to providing you with the outstanding performance you expect from FindMail on our new system. The core of our system is now running on high-bandwidth machines, connected directly to the Internet backbone. In addition, we have 24x7 monitoring and maintenance in place at our operations center so that problems are promptly dealt with. PROMOTING YOUR LIST ///////////////////////////////////////////// If you'd like to promote your list, please check out the following page for some tips: https://www.findmail.com/info/promoting.html Note that you can include a subscription box on your own Web site to enable people to subscribe to your list directly from your Web page. You can obtain the HTML code for this subscription box by going to "HTML for Your Web Suite" in your list manager interface at https://www.findmail.com/webmlm Thanks & please continue to let us know what improvements you'd like to see on FindMail! The FindMail Team support@findmail.com -------------- To unsubscribe from this announcement list, please send a message to listowners-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 6:38 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] Clarifying the next RFD for TRB Ron, I agree with you and tried it in the past both times. That is, I posted messages or pointers to the Request for Discussion (RFD) and the Call For Votes (CFV) in numerous other newsgroups. It definitely brought in more YES votes from sympathetic people who may have known something about the Bahai Faith or were honest enough to acknowledge the obvious censorship of srb. Usenet interest polls rules or custom, though, requires that all discussion take place on news.groups or be crossposted to it. Also, that any place the discussion happens on be listed on the RFD. See the old RFDs on my web site for the complete lists of where I've attempted this in the past. Actually, it occurs to me, you make me realize it, using my web site this time around, we could send people there for a more comprehensive updating on srb censorship and the reasons and history in favor of talk.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Clarifying the next RFD for TRB >Hi Fred, > >No, I'm not really hoping that they will change, >they've proved their dishonesty quite enough. But >we have a duty to remove any excuse so they have to >justify their perfidy before God. And by making the >position absolutely clear, I will be able to go to >the atheist and other groups to appeal for votes, >as the only thing stopping Baha'is on srb from >joining in will be their own naked power trip. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 6:45 AM To: WRLDpaul@aol.com Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth Just that. The srb moderators regularly censor and suppress messages from Bahais and non-Bahais that they don't want you and other people reading on srb. Most of them are for indefensible reasons. A policy banning all messages from me has been imposed due to my signature file which points to my web site and alt.religion.bahai where other Bahais can learn about these things.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: WRLDpaul@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 1:13 AM Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth >What do you mean that you have been prevented from posting a message? That >does not make sense to me. > >paul T > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 6:52 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com web statistics -----Original Message----- From: FindMail To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 1:18 AM Subject: Your FindMail List > >Dear List Owner: > >Thank you for creating a list with FindMail's MakeList service, >which provides free e-mail list hosting and makes it possible to >read e-mail lists on the Web. We hope you find this service useful. > >Many list owners have asked us for Web access statistics for their >lists on FindMail. In this message, we provide you these stats for >your list. We'd also like to keep you in the loop about some >of the new features we offer. > >[If you do not want to receive occasional announcements from FindMail, >please send an e-mail message to listowners-unsubscribe@makelist.com, >and you will not receive any further announcements from us.] > >You have the following list on FindMail: > >bahai-faith@MakeList.com archived at >https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith > > >LIST ARCHIVE TRAFFIC ///////////////////////////////////////////// > >The following information is for the months of May, June, and July >(through July 15): > >Number of archived messages accessed on the Web (page views): > >bahai-faith > May 1712 > June 2763 > July 2238 > >These stats will also be available through your list manager >interface at https://www.findmail.com/webmlm > > >NEW FEATURES ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >We have added a number of features in the past weeks. Lots more >features you'll like are in the pipeline -- please stay tuned for >a whole new level of features soon! > >In the list manager interface, you can now: >+ customize a "Welcome Message" that new subscribers receive when > you add or invite them. >+ set the default reply-to address so that messages are sent back > either to the whole list or only to the message's sender. >+ change the e-mail address of the list manager >+ access Frequently Answered Questions (FAQs) in Spanish, French, > and German, thanks to the translations provided by some of our > users (Thanks!). > >Also, international fonts are now better supported, and attachments >are fully supported both in lists and in the archive. > > >ENSURING RELIABILITY ///////////////////////////////////////////// > >Enthusiasm for our MakeList service has been growing so rapidly >that we have invested in a substantial upgrade of our systems >infrastructure in order to offer quick, dependable service as we >scale to millions of users. > >In making the transition to this new infrastructure, we have had >delivery delays for several lists in the past week. In the >upcoming week, there may be similar delays for some lists. >Please understand that we are working to minimize the impact of the >remaining changes. We appreciate your patience, and look forward >to providing you with the outstanding performance you expect from >FindMail on our new system. > >The core of our system is now running on high-bandwidth machines, >connected directly to the Internet backbone. In addition, we have >24x7 monitoring and maintenance in place at our operations center >so that problems are promptly dealt with. > > >PROMOTING YOUR LIST ///////////////////////////////////////////// > >If you'd like to promote your list, please check out the >following page for some tips: > > https://www.findmail.com/info/promoting.html > >Note that you can include a subscription box on your own Web >site to enable people to subscribe to your list directly from >your Web page. You can obtain the HTML code for this subscription >box by going to "HTML for Your Web Suite" in your list manager >interface at https://www.findmail.com/webmlm > > >Thanks & please continue to let us know what improvements you'd >like to see on FindMail! > >The FindMail Team >support@findmail.com > >-------------- >To unsubscribe from this announcement list, please send a message to >listowners-unsubscribe@makelist.com > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 6:56 AM To: loriann Subject: Re: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology Don't know offhand. Check under bahai-discuss on my web site. They're in the archived messages somewhere. You can easily search for them with a wordprocessor once you download the files. -----Original Message----- From: loriann To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 11:37 AM Subject: Re: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology >Just for my own information, what are the addresses to the Bahai only mailing lists? > >-Loriann >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 9:19 AM >Subject: Re: arb/trb FAQ & Chronology > > >Forgive me for revising this so soon. It's occurred to me >I might include some of Donald Osborn's comments & >my own at the end. Donald, I can add something more >negative if you want.... > >I would greatly appreciate input from everyone on this >FAQ. > > > >arb/trb FAQ & Chronology >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for >Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com >July 19, 1998 > >This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc >makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* >hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. >Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to >bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email >access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. >Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and >repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of >talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup >on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. > > >Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" > >ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy >of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to >access talk.religion.bahai. > > >Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" > >ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list >bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. > > >Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" > >ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are >continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to >soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and >religious conscience. > >ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] > > >Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" > >ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place >here] > > >Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and >conscience?" > >ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for >other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and >the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the >Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was >submitted to news.announce.newgroups. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm > >Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the >Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to >three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO >against talk.religion.bahai. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm > >March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of >talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in >effect more than a year and a half later. > >March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to >691 NO. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm > >Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates >alt.religion.bahai. > >October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases >a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated >newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm > >November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly >favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai >passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher >of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss >and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and >correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA >committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases >a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of >Usenet interest polling: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm > >January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was >submitted. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm > >February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES >to 65 NO. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm > >May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher >that contain his signature file. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other >issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the >Web site below. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >WEB SITE: >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >MAILING LIST: >bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription >& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > > > > > > > > >Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: > > >Donald Zhang Osborn: > >A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue >for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x >Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a >non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions >for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. >As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of >evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment >(understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and >that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that >virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of >environments). > > > >Frederick Glaysher: > >Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by >many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about >an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to >the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, >ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their >messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them >through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up >on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action >of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to >talk.religion.bahai. > >More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages >explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais >NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make >them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with >censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by >suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who >believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai >community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily >support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote >YES. > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 7:03 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Excess of Speech Chris Manvell wrote in message ... >In article <35B29069.5E5D8EF7@compusmart.ab.ca>, Bill Brewer > wrote >>BB: Of the 218 messages sitting on my screen, more than half are from >>just five people; one of the five, not interested in things Baha'i, >>cross-posts his material all over the place. One can see a similar >>situation in other, non-moderated religion groups. Is it likely that the >>situation would be much different in the proposed talk.religion.bahai?. >>We are all in favour of spreading the Baha'i message. But it seems to me >>that unmoderated newsgroups are sadly not the way. >> >>For myself, I gladly submit to the discipline of a moderated newsgroup. >>I grew up in Britain, a society that values the agressively articulate. >>Learning to 'beautify the tongue' ,as Baha'u'llah commands us, is still >>a constant battle for me after 17 years in the community of the Greatest >>Name. > >Hi Bill. > >What you say is true. There are ways of combating this problem which I >have used on other groups and which are used by soc.religion.quaker. >Unfortunately the original post from one of Quakers on how to go about >it got lost off my machine when the hard disc got reformatted by one of >Bill Gates wonderful operating systems. TRB won't be any different but >could remain reasonably clear of these cross-posts as long as a couple >of people work together to counter them. I saved it to mine and have long been hoping someone would be interested in following Guy Macon's suggestions for combatting off-topic posts. I just can't do everything around here myself!!! Perhaps you and Bill might be interested in working together on the problem. I'll post it in a few minutes to arb. > >As for the 'just 5 people,' I don't know of whom you are referring to >specifically but I can guess at least a couple of them. It is partly >because of these people (I finally kill-filed one the other day) that I >rarely read much on ARB, though I still am fully in support of an >unmoderated Baha'i newsgroup. I would say it's incumbent on Bahais to do something about it.... No one else is going to.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >With best wishes, >-- >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 >Personal Web site: >Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe): > >Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 7:07 AM Subject: Guy Macon's advice on MAITREYA crossposts Path: szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet .com!news.bb nplanet.com!news3.spinne.com!news.spinne.com!news.deltanet.com!not-for-mail From: guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Subject: how to deal with MAITREYA posts Date: 1 Dec 1997 13:34:17 GMT Organization: Electronics Engineer Lines: 89 Message-ID: <65uecp$7ak$3@news01.deltanet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ana0003.deltanet.com X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (16bit) X-No-Archive: yes Xref: szdc alt.religion.bahai:3716 Lesson #1 in maintaining an unmoderated newsgroup: crossposted threads. Right now. you have a problem with crossposted threads about MAITREYA. One such post was crossposted to: Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.bible.prophecy, talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.bahai What to do? STEP 1: Post 3 seperate posts to the three groups other than yours with a polite request to trim the newsgroups line. Here is tha one that I use in srq: **** start of quote ***** Please note that this was crossposted to: talk.religion.buddhism alt.bible.prophecy talk.religion.newage alt.religion.bahai Please trim your alt.religion.bahai from your 'Newsgroups:' line when you reply to this thread. **** end of quote ***** This will catch the few clueful folks who are crossposting. STEP 2: Email a polite request to everyone who crossposts to your newsgroup. **** start of quote ***** Hi! Would it be possible to remove alt.religion.bahai from the list of newsgroups that this is crossposted to? By having our group in your crossposting list, you cause us to also get every reply that your post generates. I don't want you to change what you are saying; I just want to keep it out of a newsgroup that is about Bahais. (I do realize that your newsreader probably just copied the list of groups from the message that you replied to. It's a pain to always check where your messages are going to be posted to, but it helps keep down the chaos if you do...) With most newsreader software, you trim newsgroups by moving your cursor up to the "Newsgroups:" line and using your delete key to remove unwanted groups. I personally like to remove any groups that I don't read. If I am mistaken and you really wanted to send your message to the Bahai newsgroup, please forgive me and ignore this; I am only trying to reach those who do not realize that they are sending copies of their messages to alt.religion.bahai. Thanks in advance for anything that you can do. YOUR NAME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS **** end of quote ***** Work it out among yourselfs so that only one of you sends the email, and keep a list so that you don't hit the same person twice. Be prepared for a lot of questions and a few flames. Answer the questions and ignore the flames. STEP 3: If, after a week of the above tactics, the thread continues, then do this: Reply to a post in the thread. Make your reply interesting and on the topic. You want this to be the sort of thing folks will reply to. remove alt.religion.bahai from the newsgroups line. This will cause the discussion to continue outside of your newsgroup. The key in all of this is unfailing superpoliteness, even in the face of insults and flames. One bahai flamer can ruin this plan, so you might have to correct each other when one of you becomes impolite... Try these methods, they are proven to work. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 7:20 AM To: billbrwr@compusmart.ab.ca Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience Did you receive this via the mailing list? Haven't checked to see if you're on it. Initially, just assumed it, then it occurred to me this morning perhaps you crossposted to it. -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, July 18, 1998 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience >Can you reformat it so that it's easier to read? So that the >lines don't wrap. Repost it here then and I'll forward it to >alt.religion.bahai if you want.... > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Brewer >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 1:55 PM >Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] a matter of conscience > > >BB: It is probably appropriate to occasionally repost this history of >Covenant-Breaking: > >Note: first is a letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the United >States regarding the importance of commitment to the covenant. Following > that is a letter from the Universal House of Justice on >covenant-breaking, and an article about "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed >Him" > prepared on its behalf. > > > > Scanned and proofread by David House; formatted by Jonah >Winters > > > > >Letter from the US NSA on the Covenant > >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States >October 14, 1997 > >To All Local Spiritual Assemblies, Baha'i Groups and College Clubs > >Dear Baha'i Friends, > >The spirits of the American Baha'i community were revived and our >commitment strengthened through study of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah >earlier this year when we >gathered during the period of the Baha'i Fast for personal reflection on >that theme. > >Dear Friends, we ask your help, once again, in focusing the attention of >the American Baha'i community on the Covenant, "the potent instrument by >which individual >belief in Him is translated into constructive deeds," by organizing >gatherings - large and small - for that purpose during the period from >November 12 (Birth of >Baha'u'llah) through November 26, 1997 (Day of the Covenant). Our daily >exertions to advance the process of entry by troops depend, first and >foremost, on the >degree of our firmness in the Covenant. Our capacity to win the >whole-hearted allegiance of new believers, to consolidate our >ever-expanding Baha'i communities, >and to withstand the inevitable attacks and crises that are a natural part >of this process, depends on our ability to draw on our "love for >Baha'u'llah, the power of the >Covenant, [and] the dynamics of prayer...." These are the "transformative >forces" that "operate" on our souls as we "strive to behave in accordance >with the divine >laws and principles." > >We have been assured by the Counselors that the Auxiliary Board members >stand ready to support your efforts to conduct these gatherings. Please >call upon them. >Also, we have included a brief list of references which, in addition to the >Sacred Writings and the letters of Shoghi Effendi, will facilitate your >study. "The Flow of >Divine Authority: Scriptural authority for the Universal House of Justice >to function infallibly without the presence of a Guardian," an article >written by Mr. G. Brent >Poirier, can be found as a special pull-out section in the August 1, 1996 >issue of the American Baha'i. [Note: article is also available here.] The >article, "Mason >Remey and Those Who Followed Him" is enclosed for easy reference. > >Our hearts and prayers are with you always. >National Spiritual Assembly of The Baha'is. of The United States > >cc: Continental Counselors Serving North America (w/enclosure) > Auxiliary Board Members (w/enclosure) > >Reference Materials > > 1 Letters on the subject of the Guardianship and the Universal >House of Justice dated October 6, 1963, March 9, 1965, May 27, 1966, and >December 7, 1969 -- all have > been published in Messages from the Universal House of Justice >1963-1986. They are also found in Wellspring of Guidance, and Messages from >the Universal House of > Justice 1968-1973. > 2 The Covenant of Baha'u'llah by Adib Taherzadeh, especially >chapter 8, "The Arch-breaker of Baha'u'llah's Covenant"; chapter 34, "The >Chief Stewards"; and chapter > 35, "The Universal House of Justice". > 3 "The Power of the Covenant, Part II" published by the National >Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada. > 4 "The Flow of Divine Authority: Scriptural authority for the >Universal House of Justice to function infallibly without the presence of a >Guardian," an article by G. Brent > Poirier. (August 1, 1996 issue of the American Baha'i). > 5 "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him" (January 31, 1997 from >the Universal House of Justice) > > > > > >Letter from the House on Covenant-Breaking > >The Universal House of Justice >Baha'i World Centre >Department of the Secretariat > >31 January 1997 >To National Spiritual Assemblies > >Dear Baha'i Friends, > >In recent years advertisements have occasionally appeared in newspapers in >various countries, placed by the Covenant-breaker Joel Bray Marangella, >seeking to >revive his claim to be the "third Guardian of the Faith." This activity >could provoke questions among the friends, especially those unfamiliar with >the developments >associated with the actions of Mason Remey, who broke the Covenant by >proclaiming himself the successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian. The >Universal House of >Justice has therefore directed us to send you a copy of a document >containing background information on these developments, entitled "Mason >Remey and Those >Who Followed Him", which was prepared for its files some years ago. You are >free to use it now or in the future, in any manner circumstances may >require, to >provide the friends with the facts it contains. > >With loving Baha'i greetings, >For Department of the Secretariat > >Enclosure > >cc: The Hands of the Cause of God > International Teaching Centre > Continental Counsellors > > > > >Article from the House on Covenant-Breaking > >Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him > >Introduction > >In addition to explaining the nature and dangers of violation of the >Covenant, Shoghi Effendi several times reviewed briefly the fates of >individuals and groups who >had surrendered to this worst of human failings. Reflection on the >consequences to those who seek to undermine the unity of the Cause helps >believers, he said, to >appreciate more deeply the protecting power of Baha'u'llah's Covenant. In >the perspective of the three decades that have passed since Charles Mason >Remey's >violation of the Covenant, it is instructive to review the consequences to >those who followed him down this barren path. > >I. Covenant-Breaking > >The Nature of Covenant-breaking What is Covenant-breaking? In a letter to >an individual dated 23 March 1975, the Universal House of Justice wrote: >When a >person declares his acceptance of Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation of God he >becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. >If he then >turns round and attacks Baha'u'llah or the Central Institution of the Faith >he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that >person to see the >illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in >accordance with the instructions of Baha'u'llah Himself, be shunned as a >Covenant- breaker. > >The personal failings that lead people to violate the Covenant to which >they know they have committed themselves have been described by the >Guardian as "the >blind hatred, the unbounded presumption, the incredible folly, the abject >perfidy, the vaulting ambition" which, in varying degrees, afflict the >persons concerned. >While some of these may have been duped by others, 'Abdu'l-Baha has said of >them: These do not doubt the validity of the Covenant, but selfish motives >have >dragged them to this condition. It is not that they do not know what they >do--they are perfectly aware and still they exhibit opposition. > > The Danger It Poses > >The Master has warned that, if unchecked, Covenant-breaking would "utterly >destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and render of no account all >efforts >exerted in the past". He sets this warning in the context of the fact that >the central purpose of Baha'u'llah's Revelation is to create unity: Were it >not for the protecting >power of the Covenant to guard the impregnable fort of the Cause of God, >there would arise among the Baha'is, in one day, a thousand different sects >as was the >case in former ages. > >Apart from the danger that Covenant-breaking poses to the development of >the Cause, it represents a spiritual contagion threatening the well-being >of the individual >believer because of its subtle appeal to the human ego. 'Abdu'l-Baha called >for the complete exclusion from the Baha'i community of anyone found to be >infected >with the virus of Covenant-breaking, and urged all believers to shun any >contact whatever with the persons involved. > > The Effect on Those Involved > >In reviewing the development of the Faith, the Guardian several times cited >examples of how these "movements, sponsored by deluded, self- seeking >adventurers, >find themselves, sooner or later, enmeshed in the machinations of their >authors, are buried in shame, and sink eventually into complete oblivion". >He adds: The >extinction of the influence precariously exerted by some of these enemies, >the decline that has set in in the fortunes of others, the sincere >repentance expressed by still >others and their subsequent reinstatement and effectual participation in >the teaching and administrative activities of the Faith, constitute in >themselves sufficient >evidence of the unconquerable power and invincible spirit which animate >those who stand identified with, and loyally carry out the provisions and >injunctions of, the >Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l- Baha. > > A Cleansing Process > >Regarding a group of Covenant-breakers in the United States which was later >to break up and disappear following the deaths of the two individuals who >had created >it, Shoghi Effendi wrote: The schism which their foolish leaders had >contrived so sedulously to produce within the Faith, will soon, to their >utter amazement, come to >be regarded as a process of purification, a cleansing agency, which, far >from decimating the ranks of its followers, reinforces its indestructible >unity, and proclaims >anew to a world, skeptical or indifferent, the cohesive strength of the >institutions of that Faith, the incorruptibility of its purposes and >principles, and the recuperative >powers inherent in its community life. > >II. Mason Remey's Defection > > The Hands' Proclamation on the Guardianship > >When news of the Guardian's passing was received at the Baha'i World Centre >on the evening of 4 November 1957, Shoghi Effendi's apartment was >immediately >locked and guarded so that no one could have access until the Hands of the >Cause of God would have time to gather in the Holy Land, which they did >shortly after >the Guardian's funeral. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament is explicit in >stating how the Guardian was to appoint his successor: > > He [Shoghi Effendi] is the expounder of the words of God and after him >will succeed the first-born of his lineal descendants.... O ye beloved of >the > Lord! It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint >in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences >may > not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in >himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, >must show in > himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should >the first- born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself >the > truth of the words: "The child is a secret essence of its sire," that >is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the >Cause of God) > and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then >must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed > him. The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number >nine persons... The election of these nine must be carried either >unanimously or > by majority from the company of the Hands of the Cause of God and >these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to >the > choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as >his successor. > >As soon as 26 of the 27 Hands of the Cause had gathered in the Holy Land >(Mrs. Corinne True, whose advanced age and health had prevented her coming, >subsequently signed affidavits declaring her support for the various >actions her fellow Hands took), they designated nine of their number to >enter the Guardian's >apartment and search for any document he might have left behind. Following >their report, all the Hands, including Charles Mason Remey, signed a >document stating >that Shoghi Effendi had passed away "without having appointed his >successor...." > >From the first conclave of the Hands, gathered in Bahji at that time, a >proclamation was issued "To the Baha'is of East and West" announcing that, >as "The Aghsan >(branches) one and all are either dead or have been declared violators of >the Covenant by the Guardian", it was apparent "that no successor to Shoghi >Effendi could >have been appointed by him...." Calling on the believers to unite in >completing the Guardian's Ten Year Crusade, the Hands pointed out that, in >due course, the >Baha'i world would elect "the Universal House of Justice, that Supreme Body >upon which infallibility, as the Master's Testament assures us, is divinely >conferred": >When that divinely ordained Body comes into existence, all the conditions >of the Faith can be examined anew and the measures necessary for its future >operation >determined in consultation with the Hands of the Cause. Mason Remey again >joined his fellow Hands in signing this second formal statement that there >was no >successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of God. > > Mason Remey Is Expelled > >Despite his written affirmations in 1957 that Shoghi Effendi had appointed >no successor and could not have appointed one, Remey himself laid claim to >this station in >a "Proclamation" of April 1960 declaring that he was the "Second Guardian". >He based this spurious claim on the fact that he had been named president >of the >appointed International Baha'i Council. When he refused to renounce his >attempt to thus seize control of the Cause, the Hands of the Cause expelled >him from the >Faith as a violator of the Covenant. Shortly thereafter a number of >believers in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere who had accepted his >claim were likewise >expelled from the Faith, among them John Carré, Donald Harvey, Joel >Marangella, Reginald King, and Leland Jensen. All of these would later play >major roles in >provoking the series of conflicts that were to hopelessly divide the >remnant of Remey's followers. > > Mason Remey Dies > >In April 1974 the Universal House of Justice advised the Baha'i world: >Charles Mason Remey whose arrogant attempt usurp Guardianship after passing >Shoghi >Effendi led to his expulsion from ranks faithful has died in Florence Italy >in hundredth year of his life buried without religious rites abandoned by >erstwhile followers. >History this pitiable defection by one who had received great honours from >both Master and Guardian constitutes yet another example futility all >attempts undermine >impregnable Covenant Cause Baha'u'llah. > >III. Divisions Among Remey's Followers > > "National Spiritual Assembly under the Guardianship" > >Basing themselves on Remey's defection, a group in the United States >calling themselves "Baha'is under the Guardianship" came together in New >Mexico in 1961-62 >and, in April 1963, formed what they called the "National Spiritual >Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States under the Hereditary >Guardianship". A similar body >was created that same month by a group in Pakistan, but soon broke up. > >The New Mexico group incorporated itself in March 1964, and brought legal >suit against the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United >States, >claiming to be the rightful owners of the Wilmette Temple property as well >as to represent the authorized voice of the Baha'i Faith in the United >States. The legitimate >National Spiritual Assembly filed a counter-claim against this group for >trademark infringement, and later secured an injunction prohibiting them >from the use of >established Bah i terminology or otherwise infringing the National >Assembly's rights under civil law. As the New Mexico group was preparing >for a second trial, >Remey suddenly directed them to withdraw from the proceedings "regardless >of the consequences". Shortly thereafter, Remey ordered the Santa Fe group's >"National Assembly" to be dissolved. The legal challenge to the rights of >the Cause in the United States came to an end at this point. > > Remey's "Second International Baha'i Council" > >Remey now created (21 September 1964) what he called a "Second >International Baha'i Council". He appointed to the presidency of this body >one Joel Marangella, >an American believer living in France, who had been an early supporter of >Remey and had been expelled from the Faith by the Hands of the Cause on 3 >August >1960. Since Remey had sought to base his own claim to the Guardianship on >his position as president of the International Baha'i Council created by >Shoghi Effendi, >this action on his part appeared to give Marangella the leading position >among Remey's followers. That serious conflicts were developing among the >band of >Covenant-breakers is apparent, however, from the fact that, on 18 October >1966, Remey abruptly dissolved this "Council" and ordered Marangella, as >its former >President, to "turn over to me such records as you have of the second >Council that no longer exists". The apparent effect of this action, which >deprived Marangella of >his leading role, was to increase rather than subdue the differences of >opinion that had appeared in the group. On 29 January 1967 Remey complained >that "Some >friends have started the report that the Guardian is loosing [sic] his mind >and that someone is controlling him...." > > The Appointment of Donald Harvey > >On 15 May 1967, Remey formally appointed one of his followers, Donald >Harvey, to succeed him at his death as "third Guardian of the Faith". >Harvey, an >American Baha'i also resident in France at the time of Remey's defection, >had been among the first group of Covenant-breakers. During the following >year Remey >appointed five of an intended "twenty-four elders" who would "administer >the Faith of Baha'u'llah" in cooperation with Harvey. Subsequently, >however, Remey >dissolved the body of elders, as he had the earlier organizations, without >having completed the promised appointments. Harvey, who remained Remey s >appointed >successor, took no action either before or after Remey's death to exercise >the powers thus conferred on him. He died in 1991 without appointing a >successor of his >own. His various letters disclaimed any interest in organization, saying >that religious faith was a matter purely for the individual. > > The Claim of Joel Marangella > >Suddenly, on 12 November 1969, Marangella announced that he rather than >Harvey should be regarded as Remey's legitimate successor. According to >Marangella, >Remey had several years earlier (December 1961) sent him a sealed letter >with a covering note indicating that Marangella would "know when to break >the seal". >Marangella said that shortly after his appointment as President of the >"Second International Baha'i Council" he had opened this envelope, to >discover a brief note, >signed by Remey, instructing him to "tell the Baha'i World that I appoint >you to be the third Guardian of the Baha'i Faith". Marangella, however, had >hitherto taken >no action on this instruction. > >Marangella's excuse for ignoring Remey's formal appointment of Harvey as >his successor was that Remey was exhibiting irrational behaviour. Remey had >by this time >begun attacking Shoghi Effendi, declaring that the Administrative Order >represented only the organizing of "the Baha'i Faith" and must be >"dismantled", and that >Remey now considered himself to be the "first" Guardian of the Baha'i >Faith. Having made his announcement, Marangella went on to create what he >called a >"National Bureau of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith". Thereafter, Harvey and >Marangella, each claiming to be Remey's legitimate successor, largely >ignored one another's >existence. > > The Role of John Carré > >By this time other contenders for leadership were pressing supposed rights >of their own. John Carré, a prolific writer, had been one of Remey's >earliest supporters >and had been expelled as a Covenant-breaker in 1961. }i.e. had originally >promoted Remey's claims to the Guardianship by sending a stream of letters >to Baha'is >whose addresses he had. As the dispute over the leadership of Remey's >following broke into the open, however, Carré suddenly emerged as a >spokesman for the >bizarre and entirely unrelated claims of one Jamshid Ma'ani. The latter, an >Iranian pioneer in Indonesia, had announced himself to be "the One Who >creates the >Messengers at every instant". > >When Ma'ani began to show signs of mental illness, requiring his >hospitalization in Tihran, Carré abandoned this interest, too, appearing >later under the pseudonym >"John Christofil" and writing as the alleged spokesman of various >organizations, including "House of Light" and "House of Mankind". In this >new capacity, Carré >focused his attention increasingly on the subject of "catastrophic events" >that would appear before the end of the century and would prepare the way >for a "Third" >Manifestation of God. > > The Intervention of Reginald King > >Meanwhile, in the United States, two more Covenant-breaking factions had >emerged and were bitterly denouncing one another. The first of these was >led by >Reginald ("Rex") King, who had been elected secretary of the short- lived >New Mexico "National Assembly", dissolved by Remey in 1964. Unhappy about >Remey's resistance to his leadership role in the United States, King >eventually went to Italy where Remey was living, and had an apparently >acrimonious meeting with >him. Following this encounter, Remey issued a letter denouncing King: "his >station to be ever and eternally that of Satan for evermore" (13 September >1969). King >switched his allegiance to Marangella when the latter advanced his own >claims two months later. This relationship, however, also soon broke down. >King decided >that Marangella had made "a number of faulty 'interpretations' of the >Writings", and declared that Marangella "had ceased to fulfill the >requirements of the office of >guardian". He argued, indeed, that "neither Mason Remey nor Joel Marangella >had in truth ever been guardians... because of the lack of lineal >descendancy" (i.e. >from Baha'u'llah). Harvey's position in the enterprise was ignored. What >Remey had actually been, King said, was "a regent", and King came to the >"realization" that >he himself "was in actuality the Second Regent...." Harvey and Marangella >paid no more attention to this claim than they had to those of one another >or of Carré, and >King died on 1 April 1977, leaving whatever rights he believed he had to a >"Council" consisting of members of his own family. > > The Case of Leland Jensen > >King's long struggle for leadership of Remey's followers in the United >States had, however, paralleled that of yet another claimant, Leland >Jensen. A dispute between >the two men had broken out in 1963 when both of them had been members of >the New Mexico "National Assembly... under the Hereditary Guardianship". >Jensen >had accused King of having "gained control" of the United States group, and >King had thereupon proposed to set up a "Baha'i court" to have Jensen >"thrown out of >the Baha'i Faith". It had been Remey's resistance to this latter manoeuvre >that had begun King's disaffection from him. > >The emergence of Jensen marks a further deterioration in the moral >character of the group following Remey. After taking up residence in >Missoula, Montana in 1964 >to avoid a disastrous flood predicted by Remey, Jensen was convicted in >1969 of "lewd and lascivious" behavior and was sentenced to Montana State >Prison. >There, Jensen had converted several fellow inmates to his claim that an >angelic visitor had told him he was "Joshua". After serving his sentence, >he began travelling >throughout the United States in an effort to bring Remey's remaining >American followers to his own peculiar interpretations of religious truth. >(Jensen claimed, for >example, to be not only "Joshua" and "the return of Jesus", but also the >"embryonic" Universal House of Justice.) These activities suffered a severe >setback in May >1980 when Jensen's widely predicted "end of the world" failed to >materialize despite his changing the date of this event three different >times (29 April, 7 May, 22-23 >May 1980). Although some of his closer associates and family members >continued their support of him, the majority of Jensen's followers >abandoned him. > > Attempts to Involve Giuseppe Pepe > >Perhaps the strangest development in this long and confused history was one >centering on a person who was neither a member of the Faith nor had taken >any role in >the activities of the various Covenant-breakers. On an earlier visit to >Florence, Italy, Remey had become acquainted with a young man named >Giuseppe Pepe, who >later served as his secretary/companion when Remey settled in Florence >following his expulsion. Eventually, Pepe was legally adopted by Remey. It >was he who, >through the kind assistance of the American consulate in Florence, arranged >for Remey s burial in 1974. To his surprise and distress, Jensen seized >upon this >adoptive relationship to announce, in an open letter, that he (Pepe) was >"the Crown Prince", the legitimate successor of Remey as "Fourth Guardian". >What Pepe >must do to secure this station was to permit himself to "be coronated King >of the Kingdom by the High Priest...." The strong suggestion was that the >said "High >Priest" was Jensen. > >When his protests were ignored, and the Covenant-breakers continued to use >his name in their broadsheets and correspondence, Pepe wrote to a Baha'i >institution >whose address he had to set the record straight. The actions of the >Covenant-breakers had been undertaken, he said, without his permission, and >repeated requests >on his part that they desist had been ignored. > > The Current Situation > >With none of the leaders of the defection able to substantiate the >conflicting claims they made, divisions continued to proliferate over the >years. Most represented >idiosyncratic agendas conceived by various individuals and largely >unrelated to one another. Embroiled in charges and countercharges, >abandoned by most of those >who had originally taken them seriously, and entirely ignored by the Baha'i >community, the various Remey factions today provide a graphic illustration >of >'Abdu'l-Baha's description of Covenant-breaking over eighty years ago: >These agitations of the violators are no more than the foam of the ocean, >which is one of its >inseparable features; but the ocean of the Covenant shall surge and shall >cast ashore the bodies of the dead, for it cannot retain them. > >By 1991 the Remey following had largely disintegrated. Death had removed >three of the principal figures: Mason Remey in 1974, Reginald King in 1977, >and >Remey's appointed successor, Donald Harvey, in 1991. John Carré had drifted >off into esoteric religious pursuits of his own. Public disgrace and >ridicule had >reduced Leland Jensen's influence to that of a cult figure for two or three >isolated groups in the American Midwest. Giuseppe Pepe had eventually >extricated himself >from further attempts to involve him in the Covenant-breakers' ambitions. > >Joel Marangella alone continues to press his faded claim to the position >that Remey had briefly bestowed on him and then withdrawn over thirty years >ago. >Occasionally, he places advertisements in newspapers purporting to >represent the views of a group he calls "the Orthodox Baha'i Faith". >Lacking the energy and >capacity to arouse interest among the public, this forlorn survivor of the >Remey defection appears still to hope that he may somehow draw loyal >members of the >Baha'i community under his influence. That reasonably intelligent men and >women should be unable--after the passage of three decades--to free >themselves from the >relentless undertow of folly and ambition that has drowned every hope and >scheme they ever cherished is a cautionary tale indeed. The fate of those >who followed >Charles Mason Remey is a case study in the nature and paralyzing effect of >the virus of Covenant-breaking. > >Notes > > The Power of the Covenant, Part Two (Thornhill, Ontario: National >Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada, 1987), pp. 7-8 > Messages to America: Selected Letters and Cablegrams Addressed to the >Baha'is of North America, 1932-1946 (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Committee, >1947), p. 51 > Star of the West, Vol. X, p. 246; as quoted in The Power of the >Covenant, Part Two, p. 11 > Baha'i World Faith (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1976), pp. 357-58 > Messages to America, p. 49 > Messages to America, p. 50 > Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Trust, >1971), pp. 11-12 > The Ministry of the Custodians (Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1992), p. 29 > The Ministry of the Custodians, pp. 35-36, 37, 38 > Baha'i News [United States ], April 1974, p. 3; as quoted in The Power >of the Covenant, Part Two, p. 27 > Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha (Haifa: Baha'i World >Centre, 1982), p. 210 Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him, page 9 > > > Return to: Baha'i Academics Resource Area main page | Search | Database >of scholars | Bulletin board | Provisional translations | Compilations | >Pilgrims' notes | Historical documents | >Letters from the Guardian | Letters of the UHJ | Letters from NSAs | >Notable talks | Books | Academic articles | Encyclopedia articles | >Conference papers and scholarly talks | Essays and > letters | Newspaper and magazine pieces | Court documents | Book >reviews | Various resources | Other academic sites | Notes to this site | >Personal pages > > >At 03:52 AM 7/13/98 +0000, you wrote: >>Frank, >>You wrote: >>> Yes, it is indeed a matter of conscience that prompts individuals to >depart from the sans-Guardian organization. And if those individuals >accept that there is a continuing line of Guardians of the Faith, they, >too, will be called covenant-breakers by those whose administration is now >clearly outside the provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. >Anyone who accepts the continuing line of Guardians, though, will be able >to live with his or her conscience that the decision made is supported by >the Baha'i writings. >>> >>We first became aware of CBs a few months ago when an issue of the >American Baha'i had an article which listed SO-AND-SO of XVILLE as a >covenant breaker, and reminded all Baha'is that they were to have no >association with this man. Since the Baha'i writings indicated, to us, that >Baha'is are kind and respectful to all, even their worst enemies, we could >not imagine what this man might have done--so we called him (XVILLE was a >small enough town that we could get find his number via directory >assistance). What was his crime? A longstanding mainstream Baha'i, he had >independently investigated the Guardianship issue and found that he agreed >with the Orthodox Baha'is, and he respectfully requested a hearing before >the UHJ to present his case. >> >>We have since found out a little more about the Guardian dispute, enough >to have us believe that this issue needs a full and open hearing before the >Baha'i community. But one thing we have heard little (actually nothing) >about, and maybe you could enlighten us -- do the Orthodox Baha'is and >sans-Guardian UHJ Baha'is practice essentially the same faith? Do they hold >the same views on most issues? >> >>Thanks for the enlightenment. >> >>Samm and Rebecca >> >> >>----- >>Original Message: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/?start=542 >>Start a FREE email list at https://www.FindMail.com/ >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > > > >Bill Brewer >402-9909 Bellamy Hill >Edmonton AB T5K 2B1 >403-425-8859 >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > > ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 11:17 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Some thoughts about current-day guardians Various articles were posted on this list in the past week or so claiming that there is a living Guardian; these seemed to come from two competing groups. An account was also posted written by the Universal House of Justice giving an account of these various claimant guardians and their followers, which made clear the dismal state of the various guardian-led groups today. Nevertheless, some of the claims sounded impressive, so over the weekend I had a good long think about them. There may be other Baha'is who, like me, were concerned about these claims, so I am posting some of my thoughts in the hope that they may be of use to others. The basic thrust of the claims was a series of criticisms of the way in which the UHJ was instituted. The correctness of the Hands of the Cause's actions was criticised, they were accused of violating Shoghi Effendi's instructions in various ways, and differences between the stages Shoghi Effendi predicted would lead to the formation of the UHJ and the actual historical sequence were pointed out. Finally, claims about the the International Baha'i Council being an embryonic UHJ were made. Nevertheless, after having read again the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, I have become convinced that all these arguments gain their persuasion from making a basically simple situation complicated. So let's simplify things. Let's grant, purely for the sake of argument, _all_ the criticisms listed above. The simple fact is that none of these things matter, and getting involved in arguments about them merely distracts from the simplicity of the basic issues. The first point I wish to make is that there are two ways legitimate authority may be obtained: it can be passed from one legitimate holder to the next (the hereditary principle) or it can be constituted by a legitimate ongoing process. Baha'u'llah drew attention to these two kinds of authority when He commended Queen Victoria for the way the British system combined the two. It is also explicit in the writings that the Gurdianship represents hereditary legitimacy and the UHJ constituted legitimacy. The Will and Testament describes a specific means of passing the legitimacy of the Guardianship from one holder of the office to the next, but it contains not a single word specifying a means by which the UHJ gains legitimacy from any pre-existing authority. On the contrary, it specifies an ongoing process (periodic three-tiered elections with universal suffrage) as the only means of knowing which body is the legitimate UHJ. So let us turn to the first question: can there be a legitimate Guardian alive today? The Will and testament states: "It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words: "The child is a secret essence of its sire," that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him. The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons... The election of these nine must be carried either unanimously or by majority from the company of the Hands of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor." This passage lays down the following requirements for a legitimate guardian: appointed by the preceding guardian in his lifetime; possess a spiritual character; be approved by a committee of nine Hands of the Cause. Of these three conditions, granting that the second is to some extent a matter of opinion, the first and the last were demonstrably and provably NOT fulfilled for any possible successor to Shoghi Effendi. Therefore there can _not_ be a living guardian now or in the future. That is beyond dispute. But this is the point at which the complications set in to muddy the waters. Various quotes were posted about the Guardian as head of the UHJ, and so on, with the implication that, lacking a Guardian, the UHJ is not legitimate. However, once again, from the Will and Testament: "...it must be elected by universal suffrage, that is, by the believers. Its members must be manifestations of the fear of God and daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast in God's faith and the well-wishers of all mankind... in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one. Unto this body all things must be referred." This passsage specifies how the UHJ is constituted, and this process IS manifestly the one used to elect the existing UHJ, so the current UHJ _must_ be the body 'Abdu'l-Baha describes. The confusion arises from a subsequent stipulation by 'Abdu'l-Baha: "...the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body. Should he not attend in person its deliberations, he must appoint one to represent him." The suggestion of the followers of the various modern claimant guardians is that this passage invalidates the UHJ's legitimacy, but let's consider it strictly logically. It says "the guardian ... IS its sacred head..."; it does _not_ say the guardian ... MUST BE its sacred head...". Therefore it is a statement _about_ the UHJ, not a _condition_for_the_existence_of_ the UHJ. Therefore all that is necessary for the UHJ to be in compliance with this statement is that they do not appoint a non-guardian as their sacred head - and indeed they have not; the UHJ has no office bearers at all. The second requirement (about the guardian's attendance) is a requirement on the guardian, not on the UHJ, so it is irrelevant if no guardian exists. To summarise: the guardian's legitimacy is hereditary; even if we interpret "branch" figuratively and agree that it doesn't necessarily refer to blood descendants of Baha'u'llah, the conditions for appointment of a second guardian were definitely NOT fulfilled, so there cannot be a second or subsequent guardian. The UHJ, on the other hand, gains its legitimacy solely from being constituted by the correct process, which it is, and so it is and always must be the only current legitimate centre of authority in the Baha'i faith. There was only one other claim of substance in the anti-UHJ posts last week, which I've left to last because it has particularly annoyed me: it was claimed that the requirement for approval of a guardian's appointment by a committee of nine Hands was a requirement on the Hands, not on the guardian. To reiterate, the passage in question is: "...these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor." The claim was made that it was a matter of those not agreeing with the appointment not being eligible to remain Hands. Why has this annoyed me? Because I am particularly offended by people who try to create a false impression by deliberately omitting a piece of a scripture. Immediately after the 'nine hands' quote given earlier, 'Abdu'l-Baha says: "This assent must be given in such wise as the assenting and dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e., secret ballot)." Now just think about it: if you held some post and your agreement was required to some proposition for you to retain your post, is it remotely credible that your agrement should be tested by secret ballot so that no one knows whether you agreed or not? It's nonsense, pure and simple. No one knowing that the vote is by secret ballot could possibly agree with the reversal of the onus as was claimed last week. I regard suppression of passages of scripture as malicious and reprehensible, and 'Abdu'l-Baha agrees: "What deviation can be greater than interpolating and falsifying the words and verses of the Sacred Text..." It's quite clear to me that anyone looking for truth need not seek it among the followers of the impostor guardians. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 7:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: fw: Re: Clarifying the next RFD for TRB Two problems with listing all religious groups. First, some of them asked me not to post anything to their groups. Second, some of the newsgroupies thought the other religious newsgroups made no sense and couldn't see how posting on OUR religion made related to THEIR religion.... In fairness, some members of the other religions felt exactly that way, especially on the Quaker site. I'm all in favor of trying to broaden the scope again but think the last RFD just about exhausts the religious sites. I suggest that we might want to consider any sites on freedom of speech, conscience, things like that.... I haven't probably sufficiently researched those groups and avenues. I have contacted about a dozen various organizations through their web sites on religious freedom. Could you see what you can find under freedom of speech? The net-abuse newsgroups for censorship, incidentally, are worthless. The news groupies have agreed more than once. It's become obvious that most of the srb-supporting Bahais aren't interested, shall I say, in discussing the real issues. That's why I do believe it's essential that the vote be taken to OTHER people. Any other groups you or anyone else might think of probably ought to be contacted as soon as possible so that they can begin to get familiar with the situation. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Clarifying the next RFD for TRB >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Ron, I agree with you and tried it in the past both times. >> That is, I posted messages or pointers to the Request >> for Discussion (RFD) and the Call For Votes (CFV) in >> numerous other newsgroups. It definitely brought in >> more YES votes from sympathetic people who may >> have known something about the Bahai Faith or were >> honest enough to acknowledge the obvious censorship >> of srb. Usenet interest polls rules or custom, though, >> requires that all discussion take place on news.groups >> or be crossposted to it. Also, that any place the >> discussion happens on be listed on the RFD. See the >> old RFDs on my web site for the complete lists of >> where I've attempted this in the past. > >Then let's list every atheist and other religious group >on the net. I sure can post honest reasons why all these >groups would want to create a free Baha'i newsgroup. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 7:17 AM Subject: Re: Excess of Speech Chris Manvell wrote in message ... , though I still am fully in support of an >unmoderated Baha'i newsgroup. Chris, Can you explain your reasons for supporting trb? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 7:47 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Observations on next talk.religion.bahai proposal Roger Reini wrote in message <35b32662.60925182@news.newsguy.com>... >May I suggest holding off on this until a more opportune time? The >previous result was 109 Yes, 65 No. This is very borderline in terms >of having enough interest for a viable proposal. As I recall from the >discussions on news.groups, it's not unusual for proposals to receive >at least 30 No votes, no matter what the merits of the proposal are. >Therefore, a proposal would have to have more than 130 Yes votes in >order to have any chance of passing. I've appended at the end of this message my research on dejanew.com, at the end of the last vote, on each NO voter. I had posted this some might recall at that time. It's important now to reconsider it. It shows that 20 Bahais voted NO, and improvement from 691, but still just enough, when taken with the approximately 29 votes from email addresses that had no history of posting to Usenet whatsoever. I stated at the end of the last vote and now again that the possibility cannot be ruled out that Bahais, probably through the BCCA, carefully calculated just the right margin needed to defeat trb and then created it through fictitious email addresses which are indicated in my annotations by 3 or 4 "hits" or fewer on dejanews.com. It would be interesting if someone else would be willing to corroborate my findings and whether ANY of these email addresses are still operating.... Such figures might be helpful on news.groups with the groupies in the future. It is true that newsgroupies often state at least 130 YES votes are now required to pass any proposal because many techies and kooks vote NO on every proposal for oddball reasons. > >In the first vote, there was clearly a lot of emotion involved, and >this skewed the vote. I can't say that the second vote was completely >void of emotion, but it played less of a role than in the first vote, >IMHO. > >Personally, I would hold off on submitting another proposal for t.r.b >until I could be assured of sufficient interest. Perhaps occasional >informal interest polls could be taken on news.groups about t.r.b. >These would not go through the official voting process, so they could >be conducted rather quickly. When the polls say there's enough >interest, then and only then should the formal proposal follow. Such "informal" polls do not exist. 157 and 109 both show there is sufficient interest if not opposed by srb and BCCA Bahais.... It show be pointed out that during both of the last interest polls srb banned all discussion of the proposal in a blatant attempt to skew the outcome which it did.... As of this morning, dejanews shows 14000, FOURTEEN THOUSAND, messages posted since April 1997 to alt.religion.bahai. My web site, since only May 8th, shows over 2100 hits. There's plenty of interest when not opposed for reasons of censorship.... > >In the interim, those of us who use a.r.b should strive to make this >newsgroup as useful and usable as possible. Perhaps you could begin by working with Bill Brewer and Chris Manvell to implement Guy Macon's advice on crossposting. There's at least one individual most of us would probably be happy to see go away. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ I know this is going to wrap and be hard to read. Sorry: ------------------------- X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people B = Bahai; 20 people SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com. techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology or technical subject matter BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and Communications Assn's bahai-discuss number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com Voted No --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir Majid X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew Pemberton-Pigott BCCA babboo [at] writeme.com Peter Buchy techy B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" Kennedy 4 hits B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby Mitchell 8 hits centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf Renkema techy d [at] idiom.com d techy ---- David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David Robinson 0 hits ---- djull [at] mindspring.com David Jull 0 hits dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai" Wolff esparantoist B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. Jonsson Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard Uthke techy B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com Dean Betts forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes Benning 2 hit X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley Macias X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick Jobidon 1 hit B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent Poirier BCCA X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham Sorenson BCCA X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. Curtis 1 hit hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank Fung trains & techy ---- hhouse [at] mailcity.com Harry House 0 hits B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB moderator? BCCA X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu Iskandar Hai X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine Taylor Pagan ---- jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim S. Jam 0 hits X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A Rook 1 hit X kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn 0 hits X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net Phil Thomas 0 hits X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian milani X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry Smith techy X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne Seamans techy ---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus Davidson 0 hits B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar Badii-Azandahi 3 hits mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael Cook techy, 2 hits mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer Locher 2 hits X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan Momen X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber techy ---- nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel Austin-Weeks 0 hits X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas Myers 0 hits B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann O'Neill 2 hits pan [at] syix.com Pan Pagan X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. LoPresti techy B persia [at] persia.com Robert Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits X petcook [at] total.net Peter Cook 0 hits X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel Watler SRB X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury BCCA secretary, 0 hits ---- polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas Polzer 0 hits red [at] rahul.net Red alt.politics.white-power ---- riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga Junior 0 hits rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael Palmeiro 1 hit B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger Borseth BCCA SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross Deeley techy B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. Hyman SRB moderator? X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre Mansouri 0 hits shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha Rao Hindu? X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown non-Bahai? X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason Steiner Christian? steve [at] Watt.COM Steve Watt techy ---- stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Donald Strong techy 0 hits B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday Marie Witte 6 hits ---- talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael Anderson 0 hits X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd Kutches 0 hits wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill Maddox Freemasonry wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L. Pagel (1 on SRB) 2 hits ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 7:59 AM Subject: fw Ron House [bahai-faith] Some thoughts about current-day guardians Thanks, Ron, saying all this so cogently.... I couldn't agree more.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 11:14 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Some thoughts about current-day guardians >Various articles were posted on this list in the past week or so >claiming that there is a living Guardian; these seemed to come >from two competing groups. An account was also posted written by >the Universal House of Justice giving an account of these various >claimant guardians and their followers, which made clear the >dismal state of the various guardian-led groups today. >Nevertheless, some of the claims sounded impressive, so over the >weekend I had a good long think about them. There may be other >Baha'is who, like me, were concerned about these claims, so I am >posting some of my thoughts in the hope that they may be of use >to others. > >The basic thrust of the claims was a series of criticisms of the >way in which the UHJ was instituted. The correctness of the Hands >of the Cause's actions was criticised, they were accused of >violating Shoghi Effendi's instructions in various ways, and >differences between the stages Shoghi Effendi predicted would >lead to the formation of the UHJ and the actual historical >sequence were pointed out. Finally, claims about the the >International Baha'i Council being an embryonic UHJ were made. > >Nevertheless, after having read again the Will and Testament of >'Abdu'l-Baha, I have become convinced that all these arguments >gain their persuasion from making a basically simple situation >complicated. So let's simplify things. Let's grant, purely for >the sake of argument, _all_ the criticisms listed above. The >simple fact is that none of these things matter, and getting >involved in arguments about them merely distracts from the >simplicity of the basic issues. > >The first point I wish to make is that there are two ways >legitimate authority may be obtained: it can be passed from one >legitimate holder to the next (the hereditary principle) or it >can be constituted by a legitimate ongoing process. Baha'u'llah >drew attention to these two kinds of authority when He commended >Queen Victoria for the way the British system combined the two. > >It is also explicit in the writings that the Gurdianship >represents hereditary legitimacy and the UHJ constituted >legitimacy. The Will and Testament describes a specific means of >passing the legitimacy of the Guardianship from one holder of the >office to the next, but it contains not a single word specifying >a means by which the UHJ gains legitimacy from any pre-existing >authority. On the contrary, it specifies an ongoing process >(periodic three-tiered elections with universal suffrage) as the >only means of knowing which body is the legitimate UHJ. > >So let us turn to the first question: can there be a legitimate >Guardian alive today? The Will and testament states: > >"It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint >in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that >differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed >must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must >be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, >knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of >the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the >truth of the words: "The child is a secret essence of its sire," >that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the >guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be >matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of >the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him. The Hands >of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine >persons... The election of these nine must be carried either >unanimously or by majority from the company of the Hands of the >Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority >vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the >guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor." > >This passage lays down the following requirements for a >legitimate guardian: appointed by the preceding guardian in his >lifetime; possess a spiritual character; be approved by a >committee of nine Hands of the Cause. Of these three conditions, >granting that the second is to some extent a matter of opinion, >the first and the last were demonstrably and provably NOT >fulfilled for any possible successor to Shoghi Effendi. Therefore >there can _not_ be a living guardian now or in the future. That >is beyond dispute. > >But this is the point at which the complications set in to muddy >the waters. Various quotes were posted about the Guardian as head >of the UHJ, and so on, with the implication that, lacking a >Guardian, the UHJ is not legitimate. However, once again, from >the Will and Testament: > >"...it must be elected by universal suffrage, that is, by the >believers. Its members must be manifestations of the fear of God >and daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast >in God's faith and the well-wishers of all mankind... in all >countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and >these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the >Universal one. Unto this body all things must be referred." > >This passsage specifies how the UHJ is constituted, and this >process IS manifestly the one used to elect the existing UHJ, so >the current UHJ _must_ be the body 'Abdu'l-Baha describes. The >confusion arises from a subsequent stipulation by 'Abdu'l-Baha: > >"...the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the >distinguished member for life of that body. Should he not attend >in person its deliberations, he must appoint one to represent >him." > >The suggestion of the followers of the various modern claimant >guardians is that this passage invalidates the UHJ's legitimacy, >but let's consider it strictly logically. It says "the guardian >... IS its sacred head..."; it does _not_ say the guardian >... MUST BE its sacred head...". Therefore it is a statement >_about_ the UHJ, not a _condition_for_the_existence_of_ the UHJ. >Therefore all that is necessary for the UHJ to be in compliance >with this statement is that they do not appoint a non-guardian as >their sacred head - and indeed they have not; the UHJ has no >office bearers at all. The second requirement (about the >guardian's attendance) is a requirement on the guardian, not on >the UHJ, so it is irrelevant if no guardian exists. > >To summarise: the guardian's legitimacy is hereditary; even if we >interpret "branch" figuratively and agree that it doesn't >necessarily refer to blood descendants of Baha'u'llah, the >conditions for appointment of a second guardian were definitely >NOT fulfilled, so there cannot be a second or subsequent >guardian. The UHJ, on the other hand, gains its legitimacy solely >from being constituted by the correct process, which it is, and >so it is and always must be the only current legitimate centre of >authority in the Baha'i faith. > >There was only one other claim of substance in the anti-UHJ posts >last week, which I've left to last because it has particularly >annoyed me: it was claimed that the requirement for approval of a >guardian's appointment by a committee of nine Hands was a >requirement on the Hands, not on the guardian. To reiterate, the >passage in question is: > >"...these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give >their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the >Cause of God hath chosen as his successor." > >The claim was made that it was a matter of those not agreeing >with the appointment not being eligible to remain Hands. Why has >this annoyed me? Because I am particularly offended by people who >try to create a false impression by deliberately omitting a piece >of a scripture. Immediately after the 'nine hands' quote given >earlier, 'Abdu'l-Baha says: > >"This assent must be given in such wise as the assenting and >dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e., secret ballot)." > >Now just think about it: if you held some post and your agreement >was required to some proposition for you to retain your post, is >it remotely credible that your agrement should be tested by >secret ballot so that no one knows whether you agreed or not? >It's nonsense, pure and simple. No one knowing that the vote is >by secret ballot could possibly agree with the reversal of the >onus as was claimed last week. I regard suppression of passages >of scripture as malicious and reprehensible, and 'Abdu'l-Baha >agrees: > >"What deviation can be greater than interpolating and falsifying >the words and verses of the Sacred Text..." > >It's quite clear to me that anyone looking for truth need not >seek it among the followers of the impostor guardians. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 5:33 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Purpose of this mailing list? In my opinion, this list was created for people to discuss whatever they want, not what I want.... I'm not particularly interested in issues of covenant breaking, the next manifestation, etc.... I'll admit my interests are limited. I don't and haven't set an agenda. Many, if not most, of my posts have been either forwards from alt.religion.bahai or dealing with the imposition of censorship by srb. Though I don't share the opinions of those who might appear on here to be covenant breakers, I believe it's fulfilling its purpose: free speech and conscience. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Mark Nachreiner To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 9:31 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Purpose of this mailing list? >All, > >What is the purpose of this list? What was it created for? Is it >fulfilling that purpose? > >I am not complaining. I like this list and I like what it allows me, and >other Baha'is who believe different things, to do. The reason that I ask is >that the founder of this list, Fredrick, never seems to participate in >discussion regarding the faith itself, only in discussion about a newsgroup. >Can someone, preferably Fredrick, tell me why this is and answer the above >questions? I don't want to go beyond the boundaries of what this list is >intended for. > >Mark Nachreiner > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 7:01 AM To: Tman Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth It's clear were not going to agree. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not about to allow srb to choose or set my signature file for me, which points to Yahoo! a major search engine. -----Original Message----- From: Tman To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Tman Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 2:54 AM Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth >Both the mailing list and alt.religion.bahai are unmoderated. >I do not control what or can be posted to either one nor am I >responsible for what someone else posts though the >"moderators" are holding me responsible.... Yes, but you're using the same argument as those that host BBS bullentin boards who have members post child pornography -- all of them have been put in jail when arrested. You do not control what has been posted, nor are you responsible for what is posted. But, the fact remains that the mailing list in question is an forum for Covenent Breakers and you give access to that. > >The srb "moderators" have repeatedly rejected and continue >to reject my messages to srb on the basis of my sig file. I can >only conclude they're lying to you.... See my web site for their >messages on the subject under srb censorship. > I've been to your web site, Fred. Right now I beleive the SRB moderators and not you. I've suggested that you post a message without your sig and see if it gets through. Apparantly you're not willing to do that, are you? In an official debate there are rules that must be followed (I'm sure you've debated in school). Sources must be approved before they can be used. There is a difference between moderating and censorship (as I've said before). If you can't see it then I think you have another agenda. >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tman >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 12:29 PM >Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth > > >Fred, that's not what I said -- and it's not their explanation, it's mine. > >I said that via your website you give access to an email list >(bahai-faith@makelist.com) that is an avenue for Covenant Breakers. So, >yes, you do. > >I talked to the SRB's moderators and they tell me that if you do include >your signature they will post your statements. > > > >SRB is moderated. To have a moderated list is not to have a censored list. > >moderate >verb, transitive; to keep within measure or bounds; to regulate; to reduce >in intensity; to make temperate or reasonable; to pacify; to preside as >moderator over or at; to slow down (neutrons) in a nuclear reactor; to >decide as an arbitrator (obsolete). >verb, intransitive; to become less violent or intense; to preside or act as >a moderator. >adjective (­rit); kept within measure or bounds; not excessive or extreme; >temperate; of middle rate, average. >noun; a person whose views are far from extreme > >noun; any of various officials in certain universities; an official who >examines books, papers, telegrams, letters, films, etc, with powers to >delete material, or to forbid publication, delivery or showing; >verb, transitive; to subject to censorship or to censorial examination or >condemnation. > >I don't wish to argue with you, Fred. That's not my point. But, I do >believe that your cry of censorship is not accurate. I have had >conversations about posts that the SRB moderators have asked to modify. I >can tell you that, as a writer, it pissed me off. But, it's not censorship. >When you post to SRB you agree to have your work go through editors. I have >worked on news-papers and let me tell you that some editors actually >practice censorship based on the definition I provided above -- some without >even notifying me first. > >I find the reasons that the moderators give for their actions acceptable. >My goal is growth of the Faith. SRB is an open forum that many non-Baha'is >who are seeking attend. Even so, there is still a lot of dissent and >discussion that goes on in a great number of topics. > >I'm willing to conduct a test with you. > >Just do it -- try submitting without your signature to see if they'll allow >it through. If they do not, then forward it to me. I'll try submitting it. >We'll see what happens. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Tman >Date: Saturday, July 18, 1998 4:05 AM >Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth > > >>Their explanation is false. My web site does not list links to covenant >>breakers. It lists a link to Yahoo! a major search engine which has >>an exhaustive index of sites on the Bahai Faith. People on >>alt.religion.bahai have pointed out that one may link from addresses >>regularly given on srb itself to covenant breaker sites too. Given the >>nature of Internet, this is inescapable. >> >>I maintain that the real motive is again to suppress knowledge of >>the upcoming third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai and my web >>site. >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tman >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Cc: SRB ; Rick Boatright (SRB moderator) >> >>Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 10:31 AM >>Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth >> >> >>>Fred, I talked to the SRB moderators. They tell me, if I understand them >>>correctly, that they don't want to post your signature because the email >>>site you offer access to via your web site advertises in your signature is >>>used as a platform for Covenant Breakers. My understanding of what they >>>said is that they will allow your post sans your signature. >>> >>>Now, Rick, if I'm mistaken in this, please let me know. >>> >>>Fred, there is no need for you to decry censorship. Requiring you to not >>>give access to Covenant Breakers is not censorship. >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: FG >>>To: Tman >>>Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 4:16 AM >>>Subject: Re: Scientific Proofs of Virgin Birth >>> >>> >>>>Tman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I must thank Dale for the copious use of quotes from Abdu'l Baha. >>>>> >>>>> Are there any quotes of Baha'u'llah that anyone has or knows of, >>>regarding >>>>> the Virgin Birth or this related Science & Religion topic? >>>> >>>>I would mention a few but the srb "moderators" are suppressing any >>>>messages from me in order to prevent you from hearing about the >>>>existence of the sites below: >>>> >>>>-- >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 8:27 AM To: www-request@infoseek.com Subject: bahai faith & religious freedom of conscience I'd like to add my web site url for "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:48 AM To: infocenter@pw.org Subject: self-publishing info Can you recommend any resources or links on the Web for advice on setting up a press and self-publishing one's own book of poetry? I got a "hit" on your Great Resources for a blank page and old Coda pages but nothing current. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 4:56 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: uhj Uhj & The New York Times As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States appears equally lamentable: "We had hoped that President Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran would apply to the Bahá'ís of that country.... The execution of Mr. Rowhani is the first execution of a Bahá'í in six years. We fear for the lives of the four Bahá'ís n death row and the other Bahá'í prisoners. We urge the international community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek justice for the beleaguered Iranian Bahá'í community." The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, notably The New York Times, has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human rights in the United States and elsewhere, including now on the Internet and Usenet, in addition to the incidents I queried you about in my unanswered email to you of March 31, 1997 regarding the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the incidents surrounding the Bahai Encyclopedia, and the listserv known as Talisman I at Indiana University. To these must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat twice now, along with other Bahais, the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup. I also ask you whether you supported or were involved in that decision. The relevant files can be found on my web site under Bahai-discuss Archives. Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has approved of or advised the recent ban of my signature file by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding talk.religion.bahai. The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Daniel Jordan, then a member of the NSA, in Stamford, Connecticut, remains unsolved. What with the worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, the case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel execution-style murder. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 5:17 PM Subject: Re: Observations on next talk.religion.bahai proposal I note you deleted this passage from my message and failed to address in in your response: It should be pointed out that during both of the last interest polls srb banned all discussion of the proposal in a blatant attempt to skew the outcome which it did.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35B914EF.45CD@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Frederick, May I suggest an easier way to build support for a possible >t.r.b. (whether sooner or later)? Please read on... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Roger Reini wrote in message <35b32662.60925182@news.newsguy.com>... >>>May I suggest holding off on this until a more opportune time? The >>>previous result was 109 Yes, 65 No. This is very borderline in terms >>>of having enough interest for a viable proposal. As I recall from the >>>discussions on news.groups, it's not unusual for proposals to receive >>>at least 30 No votes, no matter what the merits of the proposal are. >>>Therefore, a proposal would have to have more than 130 Yes votes in >>>order to have any chance of passing. >> >>I've appended at the end of this message my research on dejanew.com, >>at the end of the last vote, on each NO voter. I had posted this some >>might recall at that time. It's important now to reconsider it. It shows >>that 20 Bahais voted NO, and improvement from 691, but still just >>enough, when taken with the approximately 29 votes from email >>addresses that had no history of posting to Usenet whatsoever. > >I think it's been said by others that there are many people who "lurk" >on Usenet without posting. Also, if I'm not mistaken, someone could >1) post from an address different than that which they use for e-mail, >&/or 2) set their browser function to no archive which would mean that >their messages would not appear in Dejanews archives. > >>I stated at the end of the last vote and now again that the possibility >>cannot be ruled out that Bahais, probably through the BCCA, >>carefully calculated just the right margin needed to defeat trb and >>then created it through fictitious email addresses which are indicated > >I confess to being more than a bit flabergasted about this insinuation. >How could anyone, even if they had the intention of organizing such a >thing, know how many people would vote this way or that? I suspect >that people, Baha'i or non-Baha'i, and whether or not they participate >in BCCA lists etc., have lives and as such would not have time to engage >in such a ridiculous and likely to fail effort. Personally, I think the >results on both polls surprised everyone. > >>in my annotations by 3 or 4 "hits" or fewer on dejanews.com. It >>would be interesting if someone else would be willing to corroborate >>my findings and whether ANY of these email addresses are still >>operating.... Such figures might be helpful on news.groups with >>the groupies in the future. > >You've gone to extreme lengths to analyze this list with the object of >proving some kind of irregularity. You're entitled, of course, to >spend your time as you see fit, but it really seems like a waste. > >>It is true that newsgroupies often state at least 130 YES votes >>are now required to pass any proposal because many techies >>and kooks vote NO on every proposal for oddball reasons. > >The second poll, then, could be (and was) said to have failed for >lack of interest. So much for conspiracy. That would indicate to >this reader (o.k., here's where the suggestion begins [more also >below]) that more effort would be needed at building positive support >for the idea of t.r.b., and not imagining possible consipiracies. If >t.r.b. had received a few more votes than it did the first time, it >would have passed... > >>>In the first vote, there was clearly a lot of emotion involved, and >>>this skewed the vote. I can't say that the second vote was completely >>>void of emotion, but it played less of a role than in the first vote, >>>IMHO. >>> >>>Personally, I would hold off on submitting another proposal for t.r.b >>>until I could be assured of sufficient interest. Perhaps occasional >>>informal interest polls could be taken on news.groups about t.r.b. >>>These would not go through the official voting process, so they could >>>be conducted rather quickly. When the polls say there's enough >>>interest, then and only then should the formal proposal follow. >> >>Such "informal" polls do not exist. 157 and 109 both show there >>is sufficient interest if not opposed by srb and BCCA Bahais.... > >There is no such thing as "s.r.b. and BCCA Baha'is." I fail to see >how trying to reify such categories and place people in them could >possibly help any future effort to propose t.r.b. Much better to >see *everyone* as a potential supporter and meet them on the diverse >grounds that concern them & might motivate them to support it (one >possible was of describing building unity, IMHO). > >>It show be pointed out that during both of the last interest polls >>srb banned all discussion of the proposal in a blatant attempt >>to skew the outcome which it did.... As of this morning, dejanews > >As I understand it, s.r.b. moderators decided to discontinue discussion >of possible formation of t.r.b. as it was not discussion of the Baha'i >faith and its teachings. > >>shows 14000, FOURTEEN THOUSAND, messages posted >>since April 1997 to alt.religion.bahai. My web site, since only > >Just for the record, Dejanews also shows (when you do an interest search >on "Baha'i") a confidence rating of 99% for s.r.b., 54% for a.r.b., and >10% for soc.culture.iranian (the latter surprised me a bit). > >>May 8th, shows over 2100 hits. There's plenty of interest when > >Perhaps, but it is risky to conclude that looking at you web site or >posting to a.r.b. means anything other than a curiosity to see what's on >your site in the former and a desire to say something (possibly even >off-topic) in the latter. Someone hypothetically could read your site, >read a.r.b. (& perhaps make a post) and then decide for themselves >(without those crafty moderators manipulating their minds) that t.r.b. >might not be such a great idea after all... (BTW, that's one of the >reasons I keep suggesting to build positive reasons for creation of >another unmoderated Baha'i-topic newsgroup.) > >>not opposed for reasons of censorship.... >> >>>In the interim, those of us who use a.r.b should strive to make this >>>newsgroup as useful and usable as possible. >> >>Perhaps you could begin by working with Bill Brewer and Chris >>Manvell to implement Guy Macon's advice on crossposting. > >This is constructive. > >>There's at least one individual most of us would probably be happy >>to see go away. > >Personally, I see the problem not as the individual(s) but as off-topic >postings. > >Back to the main topic. I don't know if Roger or you is right >concerning timing, but discretion is, as they say, the better part of >valor. > >Hope this helps... > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 7:06 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 July 24,1998 Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States appear equally lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran would apply to the Bahá'ís of that country.... We urge the international community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek justice for the beleaguered Iranian Bahá'í community." The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, notably The New York Times, always courting the President and other members of the government, has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such the incidents as I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, regarding the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deepseated problems within the Bahai community and administration. To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup. I also ask you whether you supported or were involved in that decision. The relevant files can be found on my Web site under Bahai-Discuss Archives. Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding talk.religion.bahai. The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA, remains unsolved. What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest the case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel execution-style murder. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ cc: The New York Times ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 12:02 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ July 24, 1998 has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM To: UHJ; Letters to Editor; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 July 24,1998 Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, always courting the President and other members of the government, has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within the Bahai community and administration. To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under Bahai-Discuss Archives. Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding talk.religion.bahai. The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if you will, of Bahai censorship? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:06 PM To: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 fyi Any chance you could forward this to talisman? -----Original Message----- From: FG To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:24 PM Subject: To Bahai UHJ July 24, 1998 July 24,1998 Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, always courting the President and other members of the government, has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within the Bahai community and administration. To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under Bahai-Discuss Archives. Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding talk.religion.bahai. The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if you will, of Bahai censorship? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---------- From: Bill Brewer[SMTP:billbrwr@compusmart.ab.ca] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 1:21 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: To UHJ July 24, 1998 BB: Frederick, This is appalling; indecent!. To use this sad occasion to mount a broadside attack on the Institutions of the Faith - are you so consumed by your crusade as to have lost any sense of the fitness of things? You are in grave danger of making yourself persona non grata with just about everybody. That would be a pity: every organised body needs gadflies to prevent stuffiness and self-importance. I have a reputation in this area! You often come across strident, shrill, wearingly repetitious. If you wish to be a rebel, at least learn how to be successful at it! Bill Brewer (A rebel with a long track record of ghastly failures and some successes) Frederick Glaysher wrote: > July 24,1998 > > Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > > As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet > another Bahai in Iran. ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 1:23 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 Dear Frederick: Feel free just to send it to Talisman yourself. cheers Juan At 09:06 PM 7/24/98 -0400, you wrote: >fyi > >Any chance you could forward this to talisman? > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; >bahai-faith @ makelist.com >Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM >Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>July 24,1998 >> >>Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >> >>As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >>another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >>made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >>of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >>The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >>lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >>Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >>would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >>community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >>justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." >> >>The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >>of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >>always courting the President and other members of the government, >>has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >>of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >>and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >>I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >>available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >>Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >>Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >>Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >>Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >>the Bahai community and administration. >> >>To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >>than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >>Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >>twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >>unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >>talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >>these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >>non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >>Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >>approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >>BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >>Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >>discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >>many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >>that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >>Bahai-Discuss Archives. >> >>Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >>approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >>more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >>talk.religion.bahai. >> >>The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >>religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >>but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >>administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. >> >>I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >>what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >>you will, of Bahai censorship? >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >>cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 7:00 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 8:06 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience >that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in >Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA, remains unsolved. >What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest >the case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to >the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel >execution-style murder. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 7:06 AM To: clarence sevdy Subject: Re: To Bahai UHJ July 24, 1998 Aren't they covenant breakers? I'm a Haifa Bahai, if you'll forgive the expression. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: clarence sevdy To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 4:53 AM Subject: Re: To Bahai UHJ July 24, 1998 Are you an Orthodox Baha'i? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:07 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 I have inadvertently sent to talisman an early draft of my message yesterday to the UHJ which was not sent or posted anywhere else. Please disregard it in place of this revised and posted message. My apologies.... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 9:15 AM To: United Press International; bahai-faith @ makelist.com; Editor Reuters Subject: [bahai-faith] Press Release -----Original Message----- From: FG To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 9:15 AM Subject: Press Release -----Original Message----- From: FG To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 9:29 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Excess of Speech Bill Brewer wrote in message <35B7D741.98968597@compusmart.ab.ca>... >I subscribed briefly to the baha-faith makelist service, but found there a >situation little better than in the newsgroups; in the last three months, >more than half the traffic came from just one person, much of the rest from 4 >or 5 others. Bill, permit me to mention that makelist.com was primarily created to allow people with only email capabilities to have some limited access to the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. The vast majority of messages from me are either forwarded messages from other people on arb or crossposted messages from me. I urge you and others to "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com since I myself can no longer keep up with the traffic on both. >If the proposed unmoderated trb newsgroup is finally launched, it will have >to be widely supported by Baha'is if it is to achieve its potential. I find >myself now half-persuaded that trb could be a good thing. Can you share with us the reasons? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Wade & Cheryll Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 11:22 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 As you intend the revised message (below) to go to the New York Times, may I consider it "public" and forward it to others? W. Schuette At 08:07 AM 7/25/98 -0400, you wrote: >I have inadvertently sent to talisman an early draft of my message >yesterday to the UHJ which was not sent or posted anywhere else. > >Please disregard it in place of this revised and posted message. > >My apologies.... > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; >bahai-faith @ makelist.com >Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM >Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>July 24,1998 >> >>Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >> >>As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >>another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >>made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >>of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >>The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >>lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >>Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >>would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >>community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >>justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." >> >>The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >>of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >>always courting the President and other members of the government, >>has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >>of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >>and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >>I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >>available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >>Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >>Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >>Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >>Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >>the Bahai community and administration. >> >>To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >>than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >>Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >>twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >>unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >>talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >>these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >>non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >>Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >>approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >>BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >>Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >>discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >>many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >>that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >>Bahai-Discuss Archives. >> >>Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >>approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >>more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >>talk.religion.bahai. >> >>The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >>religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >>but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >>administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. >> >>I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >>what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >>you will, of Bahai censorship? >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >>cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- From: Samm & Rebecca Dickens[SMTP:newdeal@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 12:44 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Faith Dead? Mark, You are a good reason for me to get out of Bahai-- and I mean that in no ill manner. Your attitude toward the faith is, I believe, shared by a large number of fellow bahais both among the UHJ and the Guardian sects. It is an attitude of fealty and piety toward the holiness and infallibility of the founders of your faith, and while such blanket submission to human works is not at all within my capabilities, I concede that it is commendable from a more objective point of reference. I disagree with you strongly, and I certainly advise caution in your tendency to self-righteous condemnation of people whose views do not agree with yours or the sacred script to which you maintain your devotion. However, I assure you that the Bahai faith seems to be moving in the direction of its pious members. People like myself who saw the faith as an opportunity to escape from the sectarian disputes and dogmatism inherent in the religions of the world are realizing more and more that it will be, in our view, just another world religion. I love Baha'Ullah and his ideas as I conceive them, but they are not the views of Baha'Ullah that the pious followers require. Even in this effort to be objective and courteous, I feel my own biases bleeding through-- and I apologize for that. I wish you well. Remember that God is Love. Samm Dickens ---------- > From: Mark Nachreiner > To: bahai-faith@makelist.com > Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Faith Dead? > Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 11:54 AM > > Dear All, > > I wish to clarify my comments regarding Michela and her claim that there > will soon be another Manifestation of God. > > First of all, I do wish that I had not made the comments that Michela was > stupid or a fool. Whether these statements are true or not does not matter, > the fact is that it was wrong of me to write these things. I just became > frustrated with the fact that someone could/would willingly go against the > writings of Baha'u'llah. > > Secondly, I stand by my statement that she is "deprived of the Spirit of God > and > His mercy." I mentioned this not because I was "judging" her, but because > Baha'u'llah CLEARLY states that anyone who does what she IS doing, is in > fact "deprived of the Spirit of God and His mercy." > > Finally, none of us have the right to judge others. But that does not mean > that when someone obviously goes against the teachings of our faith, that we > should sit idly by and allow this to happen. This is how religion becomes > corrupted. Someone comes up with their own opinion without any proof to > back it up and people just listen. When this happens, we as Baha'is believe > that we should just allow this person to have his/her say because we believe > in unity, we do not believe in violence. But the line must be drawn > somewhere. > > We have had discussion on this mailing list regarding who the center of the > cause has been since the passing of Shoghi Effendi. Is it the UHJ without a > Guardian, is it the Guardian without a UHJ, is it both of these, or is it > none of these. This is acceptable in my opinion, because there are not > writings that say "There must be a guardian and a UHJ, after Shoghi > Effendi." There are translation questions, and different interpretations of > the same writing. > > This is different. Baha'u'llah clearly states that there will not be > another Manifestation of God until a thousand years pass. He then goes on > to state that if anyone interpret this other than its obvious meaning, they > are "deprived of the Spirit of God and His mercy." This is what I was > saying regarding Michela. I was not judging her, I was using a writing of > Baha'u'llah, within a sentence to prove a point. > > I hope this clears the matter, and we can continue on to other, more > important things. > > Mark Nachreiner > -----Original Message----- > From: Samm & Rebecca Dickens > To: bahai-faith@makelist.com > Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 2:35 PM > Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Faith Dead? > > > >Michela, > >I read a later post where Mark has now determined that you are not only a > stupid fool, but has furthermore found textual evidence to prove that you > are "devoid of God's Spirit and his mercy" (or something to that effect). > Let me guess. He doesn't like you very much, does he? > >Be assured that most people recognize that Mark, nor anyone else in this > news group , is entitled to judge. I do not agree with everything you say, > but neither I nor Mark aught really to respond with personal attacks. And > until he chooses to apologize, I offer this apology on his behalf. > > > >Dear Mark > >> > >> First you tell me I'm acting stupidly, now you say I'm a fool. Well, > that's > >> your opinion, you're free to believe what you want. Time will tell, and > I > >> believe the time is short, so I'll find out soon enough. > >> > >> MIchela > >> > > > > > >----- > >Original Message: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/?start=642 > >Start a FREE email list at https://www.FindMail.com/ > >---- > >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >-- > >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > > > > ---- > List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > -- > Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Carol Bowie[SMTP:Carol_Bowie@mindlink.bc.ca] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 6:06 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi's writings at Feast / prayer Fred, As much as I appreciate your wanting to comment on this item, I would rather you did not email me privately with your assertions about SRB censorship. I am not sure what you would comment on since you only quoted the original post and not my reply. I follow the discussions on ARB and SRB and, while I agree that there may be some mistakes made by the moderators, I do not have any sympathy for your assertion of personal censorship. Neither do I agree with your continuing to badmouth anyone connected with SRB and the administration. You have been told a number of times on ARB that the House of Justice does not respond to letters to them which are posted on other forums. The "open letter" mechanism does not work. I strenuously object to your most recent attempt to pressure the House of Justice to take up your cause by sending your most recent letter to them to the editors of the New York Times. I would appreciate you not emailing me privately about this, You have my permission to post this to ARB if you wish along with any reply you care to make. I will read it there. Sincerely, David Bowie >> >>It came to my attention some time ago that not using his writings at Feast is >> >>true only for his English writings. << > >I'd comment on this on srb but the "moderators" are censoring any >message from me. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > **************************************************************************** Carol and David Bowie British Columbia, Canada email: Carol_Bowie@mindlink.bc.ca Apathy can only be overcome by enthusiasm, and enthusiasm can only be aroused by two things; first by an ideal which takes the imagination by storm, and second, a definite intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice. (attributed to Arnold Toynbee) **************************************************************************** ---------- From: J. Michael Kafes[SMTP:justme@writeme.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:31 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 Dear Frederick: I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share it with me. Thank you. Best wishes, Michael K. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 6:47 AM To: newdeal@worldnet.att.net Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Stop e-mail -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Stop e-mail >Just use whatever method you subscribed with, >email or web page, to unsubscribed. Then you'll >should still be able to access and read the methods >through findmail. Let me know if it works. You're the >first person to ask about reading the list this way >and it would be interesting to know this for sure. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Samm & Rebecca Dickens >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 12:37 PM >Subject: [bahai-faith] Stop e-mail > > >>Copies of FindMail's bahai-faith postings are automatically sent to our >>e-mail and are cluttering it badly. I prefer to follow the dialog at >>FindMail and keep my e-mail clearer. How do I accomplish this? Please >>help with this problem. >> >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 7:03 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 Since this person is not on the June talisman subscriber list, no postings from him show up on a search of dejanews.com, and I accidentally posted the relevant version of my message solely to talisman, I'll let talisman readers decide if they know who he is and whether they want to answer him, given his claim.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Dear Frederick: > >I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >it with me. Thank you. > >Best wishes, >Michael K. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 7:08 AM Subject: Re: Press Release fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 7:03 AM Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Since this person is not on the June talisman subscriber list, no >postings from him show up on a search of dejanews.com, and I >accidentally posted the relevant version of my message solely to >talisman, I'll let talisman readers decide if they know who he is >and whether they want to answer him, given his claim.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:14 AM To: New York Times Cc: United Press International; Editor Reuters Subject: Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan Dear Editor: In regard to the email I sent you yesterday about censorship in the Baha'i Faith and on the Internet, I believe I should bring to your attention a message I've received this morning from someone else who appears to be a Baha'i and suggests that the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan in October of 1982 in Stamford, Connecticut, may have been perpetrated by someone within the Baha'i Faith. See note below too. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 7:03 AM Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Since this person is not on the June talisman subscriber list, no >postings from him show up on a search of dejanews.com, and I >accidentally posted the relevant version of my message solely to >talisman, I'll let talisman readers decide if they know who he is >and whether they want to answer him, given his claim.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > --------- The above person was responding to my message below, especially its last paragraph, which was not in the otherwise identical version I submitted to your newspaper yesterday and posted on alt.religion.bahai, but solely on the Bahai mailing list at the University of Michigan known as talisman: -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 7:00 AM Subject: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >fyi > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 8:06 PM >Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>July 24,1998 >> >>Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >> >>As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >>another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >>made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >>of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >>The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >>lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >>Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >>would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >>community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >>justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." >> >>The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >>of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >>always courting the President and other members of the government, >>has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >>of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >>and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >>I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >>available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >>Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >>Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >>Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >>Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >>the Bahai community and administration. >> >>To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >>than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >>Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >>twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >>unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >>talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >>these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >>non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >>Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >>approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >>BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >>Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >>discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >>many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >>that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >>Bahai-Discuss Archives. >> >>Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >>approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >>more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >>talk.religion.bahai. >> >>The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >>religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >>but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >>administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. >> >>It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience >>that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in >>Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA, remains unsolved. >>What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest >>the case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to >>the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel >>execution-style murder. >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >>cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:19 AM Subject: Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan -----Original Message----- From: FG To: New York Times Cc: United Press International ; Editor Reuters Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >Dear Editor: > >In regard to the email I sent you yesterday about >censorship in the Baha'i Faith and on the Internet, >I believe I should bring to your attention a message I've >received this morning from someone else who appears to >be a Baha'i and suggests that the murder of Dr. Daniel >Jordan in October of 1982 in Stamford, Connecticut, may >have been perpetrated by someone within the Baha'i Faith. > >See note below too. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: talisman >Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 7:03 AM >Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Since this person is not on the June talisman subscriber list, no >>postings from him show up on a search of dejanews.com, and I >>accidentally posted the relevant version of my message solely to >>talisman, I'll let talisman readers decide if they know who he is >>and whether they want to answer him, given his claim.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: J. Michael Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >>Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>Dear Frederick: >>> >>>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of >his >>>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you >share >>>it with me. Thank you. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>>Michael K. >>> >>> >> > >--------- > >The above person was responding to my message below, >especially its last paragraph, which was not in the otherwise >identical version I submitted to your newspaper yesterday >and posted on alt.religion.bahai, but solely on the Bahai mailing >list at the University of Michigan known as talisman: > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: talisman >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 7:00 AM >Subject: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>fyi >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 8:06 PM >>Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>July 24,1998 >>> >>>Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >>> >>>As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >>>another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >>>made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >>>of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >>>The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >>>lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >>>Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >>>would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >>>community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >>>justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." >>> >>>The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >>>of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >>>always courting the President and other members of the government, >>>has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >>>of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >>>and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >>>I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >>>available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >>>Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >>>Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >>>Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >>>Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >>>the Bahai community and administration. >>> >>>To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >>>than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >>>Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >>>twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >>>unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >>>talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >>>these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >>>non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>>of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >>> >>>Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >>>approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >>>BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >>>Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >>>discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >>>many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >>>that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >>>Bahai-Discuss Archives. >>> >>>Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >>>approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >>>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >>>more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >>>talk.religion.bahai. >>> >>>The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >>>religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >>>but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >>>administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. >>> >>>It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience >>>that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in >>>Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA, remains unsolved. >>>What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest >>>the case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to >>>the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel >>>execution-style murder. >>> >>>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>> >>> >>>cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:43 AM To: Melissa Kafes Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 Is this person related to you in any way? -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Dear Frederick: > >I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >it with me. Thank you. > >Best wishes, >Michael K. > > ---------- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:20 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com; Talisman Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan Dear Frederick-- What in the hell are you doing? This is my husband, a loyal and devoted Baha'i, and he simply asked you if you knew anything personally, since you brought it up. HE IS NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS. Did you ask him before you posted a personal email to the entire list, Reuters and the House???? No you didn't. Why would you do this? You did ask me once before posting one of my personal emails to you. Do you have any idea what you might be doing to my husband? If you have problems with the administration, please don't drag innocent people into it along with you. Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:45 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:13 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: New York Times >Cc: United Press International ; Editor Reuters > >Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:14 AM >Subject: Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan > > >>Dear Editor: >> >>In regard to the email I sent you yesterday about >>censorship in the Baha'i Faith and on the Internet, >>I believe I should bring to your attention a message I've >>received this morning from someone else who appears to >>be a Baha'i and suggests that the murder of Dr. Daniel >>Jordan in October of 1982 in Stamford, Connecticut, may >>have been perpetrated by someone within the Baha'i Faith. >> >>See note below too. >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>To: talisman >>Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 7:03 AM >>Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>Since this person is not on the June talisman subscriber list, no >>>postings from him show up on a search of dejanews.com, and I >>>accidentally posted the relevant version of my message solely to >>>talisman, I'll let talisman readers decide if they know who he is >>>and whether they want to answer him, given his claim.... >>> >>>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: J. Michael Kafes >>>To: Frederick Glaysher >>>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >>>Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >>> >>> >>>>Dear Frederick: >>>> >>>>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>>>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>>>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally >that >>>>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>>>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to >know >>>>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of >>his >>>>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you >>share >>>>it with me. Thank you. >>>> >>>>Best wishes, >>>>Michael K. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>--------- >> >>The above person was responding to my message below, >>especially its last paragraph, which was not in the otherwise >>identical version I submitted to your newspaper yesterday >>and posted on alt.religion.bahai, but solely on the Bahai mailing >>list at the University of Michigan known as talisman: >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>To: talisman >>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 7:00 AM >>Subject: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>fyi >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: FG >>>To: Frederick Glaysher >>>Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 8:06 PM >>>Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >>> >>> >>>>July 24,1998 >>>> >>>>Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >>>> >>>>As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >>>>another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >>>>made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >>>>of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >>>>The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >>>>lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >>>>Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >>>>would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >>>>community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >>>>justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." >>>> >>>>The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >>>>of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >>>>always courting the President and other members of the government, >>>>has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >>>>of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >>>>and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >>>>I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >>>>available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >>>>Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >>>>Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >>>>Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >>>>Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >>>>the Bahai community and administration. >>>> >>>>To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >>>>than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >>>>Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >>>>twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >>>>unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >>>>talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >>>>these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >>>>non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>>>of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >>>> >>>>Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >>>>approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >>>>BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >>>>Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >>>>discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >>>>many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >>>>that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >>>>Bahai-Discuss Archives. >>>> >>>>Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >>>>approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >>>>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >>>>more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >>>>talk.religion.bahai. >>>> >>>>The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >>>>religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >>>>but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >>>>administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. >>>> >>>>It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience >>>>that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in >>>>Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA, remains unsolved. >>>>What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest >>>>the case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to >>>>the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his >cruel >>>>execution-style murder. >>>> >>>>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>>>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>>>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>>>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>>> >>>> >>>>cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com >> >> > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:55 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: talisman Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >As you can see below, I tried to contact you about this earlier. > >In my opinion, if he, or anyone else, knows someone who might have >any knowledge about Jordan's murder, he should contact the proper >police authorities, not Baha'is, who would have a vested interest in >a possible coverup. > >You ask why would I do this? Because he queried me about a >murder attempting to elicit information in a questionable way >from me whether I had any knowledge about it while suggesting >he has information or knows someone who does: > >"from numerous sources that he was murdered, and a friend of >mine told me personally that she thinks it was an "inside" job, >meaning within the Faith." > >If he does, I would think it is only the right thing to do to cooperate >with law enforcement agencies. What he or someone else might >possibly know could be extremely important in solving Jordan's >murder. > >If Bahais care about justice, I would think they would support >you and him and do everything possible to seek out the truth.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com ; Talisman > >Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:13 AM >Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan > > >>Dear Frederick-- >> >>What in the hell are you doing? This is my husband, a loyal and devoted >>Baha'i, and he simply asked you if you knew anything personally, since you >>brought it up. HE IS NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS. >> >>Did you ask him before you posted a personal email to the entire list, >>Reuters and the House???? No you didn't. Why would you do this? You did >ask >>me once before posting one of my personal emails to you. Do you have any >>idea what you might be doing to my husband? >> >>If you have problems with the administration, please don't drag innocent >>people into it along with you. >> >>Milissa Boyer Kafes >>mbkafes@bestweb.net >> >> >> >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > > >-----Original Message----- >From: MAILER-DAEMON@hotmail.com >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:42 AM >Subject: failure notice > > >>Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hotmail.com. >>I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following >addresses. >>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >> >>: >>Sorry, I couldn't find any host named bestweb.ne. (#5.1.2) >> >>--- Below this line is a copy of the message. >> >>Return-Path: >>Received: (qmail 6794 invoked from network); 26 Jul 1998 12:41:49 -0000 >>Received: from modem26.rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher.Library) >(199.179.42.126) >> by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 1998 12:41:49 -0000 >>Message-ID: <000d01bdb892$f5f2ada0$7e2ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >>From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>To: "Melissa Kafes" >>Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 08:43:13 -0400 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset="iso-8859-1" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>X-Priority: 3 >>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 >>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 >> >>Is this person related to you in any way? >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: J. Michael Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >>Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>Dear Frederick: >>> >>>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of >his >>>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you >share >>>it with me. Thank you. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>>Michael K. >>> >>> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:58 AM To: New York Times Cc: Editor Reuters; United Press International Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: talisman Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >As you can see below, I tried to contact you about this earlier. > >In my opinion, if he, or anyone else, knows someone who might have >any knowledge about Jordan's murder, he should contact the proper >police authorities, not Baha'is, who would have a vested interest in >a possible coverup. > >You ask why would I do this? Because he queried me about a >murder attempting to elicit information in a questionable way >from me whether I had any knowledge about it while suggesting >he has information or knows someone who does: > >"from numerous sources that he was murdered, and a friend of >mine told me personally that she thinks it was an "inside" job, >meaning within the Faith." > >If he does, I would think it is only the right thing to do to cooperate >with law enforcement agencies. What he or someone else might >possibly know could be extremely important in solving Jordan's >murder. > >If Bahais care about justice, I would think they would support >you and him and do everything possible to seek out the truth.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com ; Talisman > >Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:13 AM >Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan > > >>Dear Frederick-- >> >>What in the hell are you doing? This is my husband, a loyal and devoted >>Baha'i, and he simply asked you if you knew anything personally, since you >>brought it up. HE IS NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS. >> >>Did you ask him before you posted a personal email to the entire list, >>Reuters and the House???? No you didn't. Why would you do this? You did >ask >>me once before posting one of my personal emails to you. Do you have any >>idea what you might be doing to my husband? >> >>If you have problems with the administration, please don't drag innocent >>people into it along with you. >> >>Milissa Boyer Kafes >>mbkafes@bestweb.net >> >> >> >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > > >-----Original Message----- >From: MAILER-DAEMON@hotmail.com >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:42 AM >Subject: failure notice > > >>Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hotmail.com. >>I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following >addresses. >>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >> >>: >>Sorry, I couldn't find any host named bestweb.ne. (#5.1.2) >> >>--- Below this line is a copy of the message. >> >>Return-Path: >>Received: (qmail 6794 invoked from network); 26 Jul 1998 12:41:49 -0000 >>Received: from modem26.rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher.Library) >(199.179.42.126) >> by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 1998 12:41:49 -0000 >>Message-ID: <000d01bdb892$f5f2ada0$7e2ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >>From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>To: "Melissa Kafes" >>Subject: Fw: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 08:43:13 -0400 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset="iso-8859-1" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>X-Priority: 3 >>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 >>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 >> >>Is this person related to you in any way? >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: J. Michael Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >>Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>Dear Frederick: >>> >>>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of >his >>>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you >share >>>it with me. Thank you. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>>Michael K. >>> >>> >> >> > ---------- From: J. Michael Kafes[SMTP:justme@writeme.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 10:52 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:49:38 -0400 >To: letters@nytimes@com >From: "J. Michael Kafes" >Subject: Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >Cc: tips@upi.com,editor.reuters@reuters.com > >Dear Editor: > >I have just recently been made aware that Frederick Glaysher forwarded to you (time-stamped July 26 at 8:14 a.m.) a copy of a personal email I sent to him. He did this without my knowledge or consent and has misrepresented what I said. > >I am not supporting Mr. Glaysher's assertion that the alleged murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan was an execution or an "inside"job. I had only heard the rumor. I have no other information whatsoever to offer. From the wording of Mr. Glaysher's message, I thought perhaps he knew something about it personally. The sole intent of my email to him was to ask if he knew anything about it directly, or if he was merely referring to the rumor. > >I am in no way, shape, or form suggesting that this murder was committed by a Baha'i or anyone else. It was merely a request for him to be forthcoming with any information he has. It now appears to me that he does not have any personal, direct knowledge of this incident and is merely using my email to leverage his claims and put pressure on the Universal House of Justice. > >Sincerely, > >J. Michael Kafes >Justme@writeme.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 11:00 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com; Talisman Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan Frederick-- >As you can see below, I tried to contact you about this earlier. > You left off the t at the end of my email: mbkafes@bestweb.net And that still doesn't explain why you forwarded his personal mail without his permission. He was the person you should have contacted, not me. I cannot give you permission to post a third persons (even my husband) email anyway! Plus, you had already sent your message to the lists and news organizations BEFORE you queried my email: you queried my email at 8:42 am but forwarded my husband's post at 7:03 am to Talisman and to the various news agencies at 8:14 am. Of course, you never asked him at all. >You ask why would I do this? Because he queried me about a >murder attempting to elicit information in a questionable way >from me whether I had any knowledge about it while suggesting >he has information or knows someone who does: Again, he did NOT suggest that he has information and only related a rumor he heard. But now you have spread a lie about him all over the whole planet that he has some kind of information that he is not telling the police. Friends: Mr Glaysher has now spread this lie about my husband to 2 Baha'i lists, the UHJ, NY Times, Reuters and UPI because he thought the wording of Michael's post was *questionable* Mr Glaysher, do you have any idea what you have done??? >If he does, I would think it is only the right thing to do to cooperate >with law enforcement agencies. What he or someone else might >possibly know could be extremely important in solving Jordan's >murder. He has no knowledge of this event, other than the rumor. Please see the copy of the letter he has just sent to the various news agencies and has cc'd to Talisman and Bahai-Faith Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Neo Luddite[SMTP:neoluddite@mailcity.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 4:11 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: Milissa Boyer Kafes Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:00:08 Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote: > Mr Glaysher, do you have any idea what you have > done??? Dear Milissa, Glaysher knows exactly what he did, and he did with malicicious intent. Glaysher studied, and I believe taught, "rhetoric," the art of persuasion. He is as precise as a scientist in selection of words and in his use of email lists and Usenet groups. I am very sorry and very angry about what Glaysher did to you and your husband. Yet he has revealed his true nature to you. Glaysher has a long history of using people's private email without permission. He twists and bends and exploits people's words to suit his purposes. And in this case, as you point out out, it is quite evident that he is a blatant liar about when he sent your husband's post off to everyone before contacting you NOT after. Glaysher is a trojan horse. His issue, his crusade is supposedly "censorship." But I suggest you study his posts. At least half of them either present the Faith in a negative light or quote someone else doing the same. His real attack is on the Faith itself. I will post, if you like, his vicious, racist remarks about Persians as just an example of one of hundreds of posts carefully calculated to undermine and discredit the Fiath. About censorship: Glaysher makes a big deal of the events surrounding the Talisman I list. What Fred doesn't tell you that on a list that was full of angry flames and hostile attacks, Glaysher was the ONLY person to be permanently banned from that list because he was so disruptive. Glaysher was banned from the BCCA lists for the same reason. It is neither; it is my freedom of expression, what Glaysher adviocates. Just as was Glayher's abuse of husband's private email and his calumny about the unsolved murder of Daniel Jordan. We both are free to say what we want to say. With malice aforethought rather than a "heavy heart," Galysher wrote: "It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA,remains unsolved. What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest he case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel execution-style murder." Whatever might be the internal difficulties within our community, murder conspiracies are not one of them. Milissa, should you or your husband wish to pursue libel, copyright or other legal action aginst Glaysher, let me help. Here is where he is located: Work (selling real estate): Century21 Town & Country 722 W. University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Office: 810-652-8000, ext. 139 Voice Mail: 810-650-1086, ext. 139 Pager: 810-830-0544 FAX: 810-652-8503 Home: Frederick and 212 Avon Manor Rd, Rochester, MI 48307-5422 Phone: 810-853-6998 The major intersection near his house is John R. Rd. and E. Auburn Rd. He lives right off the side streets of of Truwood Ave. and Collingwood Dr. Frederick, feel free to respond with a rant, or whatever, and post and cross-post this to the Universe. Such a post will offer yet more evidence of the "Glaysher-Gospel." NeoLuddite Now MailCity offers forwarding so you can check your MailCity messages and other e-mail all in one place. Go to https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 11:33 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com; Neo Luddite Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan Hi Neo-- Thank you for your response. My husband just wants to drop the whole thing. He just wanted it to be clear that he does not agree with Mr Glaysher. My husband misunderstood Mr Glaysher to be saying he (Mr Glaysher) had direct knowledge of the event, which he obviously does not. So, yes my hubby regrets asking Mr Glaysher about this! Hopefully, Mr. Glaysher will let this rest and we can all move on. This was quite a regrettable experience all the way around. Peace Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: FAQ arb/trb FAQ & Chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 19, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ------------------------------------ Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments). Frederick Glaysher: Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on alt.religion.bahai or my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too "liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist lines. The message may be on my web site. The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible implications.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Dear Frederick: > >I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >it with me. Thank you. > >Best wishes, >Michael K. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on alt.religion.bahai or my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too "liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist lines. The message may be on my web site. The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible implications.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Dear Frederick: > >I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >it with me. Thank you. > >Best wishes, >Michael K. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on alt.religion.bahai or my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too "liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist lines. The message may be on my web site. The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible implications.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Dear Frederick: > >I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >it with me. Thank you. > >Best wishes, >Michael K. > > ---------- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 2:26 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] To Mr Glaysher Mr Glaysher-- Please explain to me, my husband (he has a name, you know!) and everyone else on this list WHY you forwarded a private email to various lists, major news agencies and the UHJ without his permission? How can you expect to have any credibility? How can anyone trust you now? This is not an ad-hominem attack. I am asking you to justify your unethical and illegal *behavior*, not your *views*! Why haven't you emailed him personally to apologize? Quit forwarding his message and do not put it on your website. Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 5:39 PM Subject: re murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > -- Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 7:40 AM Subject: re murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 7:47 AM Subject: Re: Cross posting Crossposting back and forth to and from makelist.com can be confusing. I agree. Unfortunately, it's the best that can be done without talk.religion.bahai. There are people on makelist.com who have no access to alt.religion.bahai. If anything, I would like to see more people on arb crossposting to bahai-faith@makelist.com because I myself can no longer keep up with all of the traffic and do the forwarding myself though I do still send some things that seem especially worthwhile back and forth. Just the mailing list would defeat the whole purpose of an unmoderated newsgroup. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ George/Marlena wrote in message <6pi745$q8g$1@news.eli.net>... >In reply to repeated suggestions to include copies of posts made to ARB to >other >places: >I have found that cross posting in the manor suggested >cc: to other places, >makes an already difficult task of keeping track of posts, threads, >and replays impossible. It means having to check not only newsroom >posts, but also an Internet list or lists (or get 56 emails in 5 days that >have to be checked >before deleting). IMO more is not always better. >I have, however noted from posts on the Bahai-Faith mailinglist a quality >of post that is sometimes lacking in the newgroups. I am thankful that >someone told me about it. Brings up a question in my mind of: >Why not JUST post on the mailinglist where everyone can read it? >PostOn. >George > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 7:53 AM Subject: fw J. Michael Kafes : [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 10:44 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:49:38 -0400 >>To: letters@nytimes@com >>From: "J. Michael Kafes" >>Subject: Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >>Cc: tips@upi.com,editor.reuters@reuters.com >> >>Dear Editor: >> >>I have just recently been made aware that Frederick Glaysher forwarded to >you (time-stamped July 26 at 8:14 a.m.) a copy of a personal email I sent >to him. He did this without my knowledge or consent and has misrepresented >what I said. >> >>I am not supporting Mr. Glaysher's assertion that the alleged murder of >Dr. Daniel Jordan was an execution or an "inside"job. I had only heard the >rumor. I have no other information whatsoever to offer. From the wording >of Mr. Glaysher's message, I thought perhaps he knew something about it >personally. The sole intent of my email to him was to ask if he knew >anything about it directly, or if he was merely referring to the rumor. >> >>I am in no way, shape, or form suggesting that this murder was committed >by a Baha'i or anyone else. It was merely a request for him to be >forthcoming with any information he has. It now appears to me that he does >not have any personal, direct knowledge of this incident and is merely >using my email to leverage his claims and put pressure on the Universal >House of Justice. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>J. Michael Kafes >>Justme@writeme.com > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 7:55 AM Subject: fw Milissa Boyer Kafes Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: bahai-faith@makelist.com ; Talisman Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >Frederick-- > >>As you can see below, I tried to contact you about this earlier. >> > >You left off the t at the end of my email: >mbkafes@bestweb.net > >And that still doesn't explain why you forwarded his personal mail without >his permission. He was the person you should have contacted, not me. I >cannot give you permission to post a third persons (even my husband) email >anyway! > >Plus, you had already sent your message to the lists and news organizations >BEFORE you queried my email: >you queried my email at 8:42 am but forwarded my husband's post at 7:03 am >to Talisman and to the various news agencies at 8:14 am. Of course, you >never asked him at all. > >>You ask why would I do this? Because he queried me about a >>murder attempting to elicit information in a questionable way >>from me whether I had any knowledge about it while suggesting >>he has information or knows someone who does: > > >Again, he did NOT suggest that he has information and only related a rumor >he heard. But now you have spread a lie about him all over the whole >planet that he has some kind of information that he is not telling the >police. > >Friends: Mr Glaysher has now spread this lie about my husband to 2 Baha'i >lists, the UHJ, NY Times, Reuters and UPI because he thought the wording of >Michael's post was *questionable* Mr Glaysher, do you have any idea what >you have done??? > >>If he does, I would think it is only the right thing to do to cooperate >>with law enforcement agencies. What he or someone else might >>possibly know could be extremely important in solving Jordan's >>murder. > > >He has no knowledge of this event, other than the rumor. Please see the >copy of the letter he has just sent to the various news agencies and has >cc'd to Talisman and Bahai-Faith > >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: fw Neo Luddite Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan FYI -----Original Message----- From: Neo Luddite To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: Milissa Boyer Kafes Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:00:08 Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote: > >> Mr Glaysher, do you have any idea what you have > done??? > >Dear Milissa, > >Glaysher knows exactly what he did, and he did with malicicious intent. Glaysher studied, and I believe taught, "rhetoric," the art of persuasion. He is as precise as a scientist in selection of words and in his use of email lists and Usenet groups. > >I am very sorry and very angry about what Glaysher did to you and your husband. Yet he has revealed his true nature to you. Glaysher has a long history of using people's private email without permission. He twists and bends and exploits people's words to suit his purposes. And in this case, as you point out out, it is quite evident that he is a blatant liar about when he sent your husband's post off to everyone before contacting you NOT after. > >Glaysher is a trojan horse. His issue, his crusade is supposedly "censorship." But I suggest you study his posts. At least half of them either present the Faith in a negative light or quote someone else doing the same. His real attack is on the Faith itself. I will post, if you like, his vicious, racist remarks about Persians as just an example of one of hundreds of posts carefully calculated to undermine and discredit the Fiath. > >About censorship: Glaysher makes a big deal of the events surrounding the Talisman I list. What Fred doesn't tell you that on a list that was full of angry flames and hostile attacks, Glaysher was the ONLY person to be permanently banned from that list because he was so disruptive. Glaysher was banned from the BCCA lists for the same reason. > > >It is neither; it is my freedom of expression, what Glaysher adviocates. Just as was Glayher's abuse of husband's private email and his calumny about the unsolved murder of Daniel Jordan. We both are free to say what we want to say. > >With malice aforethought rather than a "heavy heart," Galysher wrote: > >"It is with a heavy heart compelled by the weight of conscience that I observe that the murder in 1982 of Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut, then a member of the NSA,remains unsolved. What with the ever-worsening pattern of tyranny and intrigue, I suggest he case should perhaps be reopened and serious investigation given to the possibility that Bahai fanaticism lies hidden at the root of his cruel execution-style murder." > >Whatever might be the internal difficulties within our community, murder conspiracies are not one of them. > > >Milissa, should you or your husband wish to pursue libel, copyright or other legal action aginst Glaysher, let me help. Here is where he is located: > >Work (deleted): > >[deleted] >[address deleted] >Office: [deleted] >Voice Mail: [deleted] >Pager: [deleted] >FAX: [deleted] > >Home: > >Frederick and [deleted]Glaysher >[deleted] >[deleted] >Phone: [deleted] > >The major intersection near his house is [deleted]. and [deleted]Rd. He lives right off the side streets of of [deleted]Ave. and [deleted]Dr. > >Frederick, feel free to respond with a rant, or whatever, and post and cross-post this to the Universe. Such a post will offer yet more evidence of the "Glaysher-Gospel." > >NeoLuddite > > > > >Now MailCity offers forwarding so you can check your MailCity messages and other e-mail all in one place. Go to https://www.mailcity.com >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:01 AM Subject: FW Milissa Boyer Kafes Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: bahai-faith@makelist.com ; Neo Luddite Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >Hi Neo-- > >Thank you for your response. My husband just wants to drop the whole thing. >He just wanted it to be clear that he does not agree with Mr Glaysher. My >husband misunderstood Mr Glaysher to be saying he (Mr Glaysher) had direct >knowledge of the event, which he obviously does not. > >So, yes my hubby regrets asking Mr Glaysher about this! Hopefully, Mr. >Glaysher will let this rest and we can all move on. This was quite a >regrettable experience all the way around. > >Peace >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:03 AM Subject: FW Milissa Boyer Kafes [bahai-faith] To Mr Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 2:26 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] To Mr Glaysher >Mr Glaysher-- > >Please explain to me, my husband (he has a name, you know!) and everyone >else on this list WHY you forwarded a private email to various lists, major >news agencies and the UHJ without his permission? > >How can you expect to have any credibility? How can anyone trust you now? > >This is not an ad-hominem attack. I am asking you to justify your unethical >and illegal *behavior*, not your *views*! Why haven't you emailed him >personally to apologize? Quit forwarding his message and do not put it on >your website. > >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: FW Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:24 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan Ron, I've tried seven times since yesterday morning to post this message to alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc without success while I've been able to post other messages without any trouble. Would you consider forwarding this for me? I don't know what the problem is. I'd appreciate it. If you would, just cut all of this top message to you and post the original below. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:36 AM To: Ron House Subject: also.... Let me add, I've tried posting it from three different sources, dejanews.com, my usual server, and another news browser. Don't know what to make of it. Let me know if you see it on your server.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:33 AM Subject: bahai dissimulation or "hikmat" fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Amir Butler Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab, 9 July 1850 >You might find the article on dissimulation on my web site >of interest. I would respond to you on soc.religion.bahai but >the "moderators" have forbidden any messages from me that >contain my signature file at the end of this message: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm > > > >Amir Butler wrote: >> >> Date sent: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:14:22 +1000 >> Organization: Edge-Internet-Services >> >> Bahais as is their wont make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, like ‘the >> Bahai Faith is in perfect harmony with other Divine faiths like Islam, >> Judaism, Christianity, etc.’, ‘....we have come to unite mankind on one >> platform without any bias and prejudice’, ‘...we wish to establish unity, >> peace and equality among the people’. These and such other statements >> though apparently very noble are masked with deception. To make the >> Bahais as well as non-Bahais aware of this deception was felt necessary. >> >> This article was written with this very objective in mind. Mentioned >> below are a series of incidents that will distinctly underline my >> claims. Hopefully at the end, this article will leave the reader more >> enlightened. >> >> Bahais give credence to disguising their Faith from the common gullible >> populace, disclosing it, only once they convert to Bahaism. This practice >> is described as ‘Dissimulation’. As per principles of ‘Taqaiya’, Bahais >> conceal their Faith (or are at least permitted to conceal their Faith), >> if it serves their interests. (This practice was actually followed in >> Indonesia quite successfully. But when they had got too widespread and >> the Government got wise they were driven out.) >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, one of Bahaism’s most renowned missionaries, >> has written a book ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (in Persian) in 1914 A.H. His >> treatise is considered noteworthy among the Bahais. This book was written >> by him under explicit instructions from Abbas Affandi.. Mirza Haider Ali >> Isfahani is buried in Akka (the Bahai Mecca) near Bahaullah’s tomb. >> >> In his book (Bombay edition) he states that ‘ ...when Bahaullah sent me >> to Istanbul on Abdul Bahaa’s recommendation for preaching Bahaism there >> he advised me “...you should meet the masses with tact and your meeting >> with me should be disclosed in a very nonchalant manner, so they are not >> alarmed. And at all times bear in mind never to disclose your wealth, >> your destination and your religion, and implement this till the last >> possibility”’ >> >> Further in his book Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani has mentioned many meetings >> with the populace where he has strictly abided by Bahaullah’s edict i.e. >> concealing the faith. I have made an attempt below wherein such incidents >> are mentioned that will make evident to my readers the objective behind >> this dissumilation >> >> Incident 1 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates ‘When I was condemned in Egypt and the >> people said about me “az deene Islam kharij shudeh ast wa deene aaeene >> jadeedee bid’at namudeh ast” “... this man has forsaken the religion of >> Islam and accepted a new religion”, I wrote a letter to the police >> officer saying “with selfishness and the malice which they bore towards >> us have blamed us of following a new religion and a new book. But after a >> thorough scrutiny of facts, the falsehood of these accusations will be >> as evident for the king as the midday sun”’ (Pg. 107) But he himself >> later mentions on pg. 184 ‘...it was made apparent with clear proofs (to >> one person) about the culmination of Islam and the advent of a new >> religion’. The deceit in the two statements mentioned above is also as >> evident as the midday sun , wherein, on one hand Mirza Haider Ali >> Isfahani vociferously denies his (new) faith and on the other he makes >> apparent to others this very (new) faith. >> >> Incident 2 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates on pg. 86-88 of the same book that ... >> after I had been appointed as a missionary by Bahaullah for preaching the >> religion of Bahaism and I arrived in Egypt, the Iranians protested that >> “you have abandoned your belief on the Finality of Prophethood (Khatame >> Nabuwwat) and forsaken Islam and Muslims and you preach that Muhammad >> (PBUH) is not the last Prophet.” Then I told them, “baraaye tabligh naya >> aamdeheem wa khud ra qaabile eenkeh nisbat mo’mineen een amr badheem >> namee daaneem ta cheh rasd bemuballageen” “....I have not come to preach >> Bahaism, let alone being a Bahai, I do not consider myself equal to even >> a simple Bahai’ >> >> Again, the doublespeak in Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words is >> unmistakable. He denies his Bahai inclination when he himself was >> appointed by Bahaullah on the counsel of Abbas Affandi as a missionary. >> (Pg. 83) Then why this contradiction ??? This hypocrisy is in stark >> contrast with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said “Lie is >> the key to all evil”. No where does one find a single instance of Prophet >> Muhammad (PBUH) or Prophet Jesus (PBUH) advising their disciples to lie >> about their faith to the gullible so as to spread the message of Islam or >> Christianity. In fact Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to say "Refrain from >> lying even if it to your benefit, and always speak the truth even if it >> to your detriment". But we find Bahaullah and his successor advocating >> the philosophy of 'dissimulation' that totally contradicts the philosophy >> of the divine 'abrogated' religions. An institution based on lies and >> deceit can hardly be expected to survive for long, even though it may >> seem beneficial in the short term. This is something the Bahais must >> realise. Simply, increasing one’s numbers is a very short sighted >> approach. >> >> The Bahais must focus more on resolving the glaring discrepancies >> inherent in their faith that I have mentioned in my earlier articles. >> They should not be too concerned about numbers. People will come to the >> Faith, provided the truth is with them. >> >> Incident 3 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, was once called to meet the Shah of Iran, >> Shujaaudaulah. The latter had got wind of Bahai activism . Mirza Haider >> Ali Isfahani as was his wont, did not disclose his identity. However, >> unable to conceal his enthusiasm, in the course of his meeting, he >> extolled the virtues of Akka. Shujaaudaulah, a very perceptive >> individual, remarked that “..unless a person is a Bahai, he will not >> speak such. You are a Bahai, however you are loathe to disclose it”. But >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani keeping Bahaullah’s admonition in mind tried to >> deceive the Shah by saying “agar faanee mo’min wa mo’kin ast baayad >> hazratash dar jameea jahaat etaa’at konam” “If I am a Bahai and have >> (truely) accepted the Faith, then I must observe all the commands of >> Hazrat Bahaullah” (Behjatoos Sudoor Pg. 196) However by concealing his >> true identity (from the Shah) he has indeed observed one of the basic >> tenets of dissumulation laid down by Bahaullah. >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words: “We have shattered the Muslims” , >> coupled with the Bahai deceit and dissimulation with the Muslims (and >> others) bear ample testimony to his and Bahaullah’s intentions. Bahai >> missionaries then as well today, propagate with this objective. These >> words of Mirza Haider Ali Isfaani should serve as a warning for people >> across all faiths especially the Muslims. Muslim Ulamas (scholars) should >> take the initiative in this matter. They should study more about the >> Bahai faith and launch an awareness campaign amongst the common gullible >> Muslims. Protecting the faith (Imaan) of common Muslims in this era from >> attacks of Bahai missionaries (like Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani) is >> crucial. >> >> Incident 4 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani recounts on pg. 206-7 of the same book ‘...I >> alongwith two other Bahais, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq had >> gathered at a place in Iran. In the morning, the Muslims had besieged the >> place. I handed over all the important documents regarding Bahaism to my >> companions and surrendered myself to the Muslims. They took me to a house >> outside the city and warned me that if I do not give them all the >> important documents to them they would cut me into pieces. >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani deceived them by saying that “..at midnight >> yesterday, a man representing Shah Shujaauduallah had come, and I >> surrendered everything to him.” Consequently I was spared and my two >> companions meanwhile, also made good their escape with the documents.’ >> >> Incident 5 >> The Bahais to preach their Faith among the Muslims, even go to the extent >> of praying ‘Namaaz’ with Muslims. >> >> This is in stark violation of the Bahai tenet which strictly forbids a >> Bahai from praying like the Muslims. Let alone ‘Namaaz’ they are not even >> permitted even to perform their ablutions (Wuzu) like the Muslims. This >> is quite evident, as Bahaullah claims to have abrogated Islam. However, >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani states in ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (Pg. 97) “ faanee >> wa Mirza Hussain Shirazi wa Darvesh Hussain sab meeaad bakhaaneh concal >> fateem wa nazde u wa aakhareen ham dar zaahir aadaabe Islam laahifz me >> namud zilm wa lu yatee bekitaabe jadeed wa shorue jadeed ra ham bedaleel >> aafakeeh wa anfaseeh saabit me kard” ‘One night I, Mirza Hussain Shirazi >> and Darvesh Hussain met at the residence of the council as planned. I >> used to prove the veracity of the new Book (Aqdas) and the new religion >> (Bahaism) with hidden as well as apparent proofs as the religion of Islam >> was abrogated. However we prayed ‘Namaaz’ at the residence of the council >> in a manner similar to the other Muslims. And we always did this in front >> of others (non-Muslims) as well’ >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani and his fellow missionaries went to the extent >> of contravening the Bahai principle just to convert a few Muslims. They >> performed an unlawful act (as per their Faith) only to get close to the >> Muslims. Why did they resort to such deceitful ways to propagate ? Or did >> they believe that so long as the ends justify the means, then everything >> is permissible ? >> >> This mode of propagation of Bahaism is indeed strange. Never did Prophet >> Muhammad (PBUH) advice the missionaries to pretend to pray along with the >> Jews (of his time), although the Jews were Islam’s sworn enemies. He >> always used words of kindness and compassion with the people and >> attracted them towards Islam with his excellent morals. Quran says “We >> have created the Prophet as an excellent examplar for you” To the extent >> that even the bloodthirsty infidels used to call Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) >> him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy). Now compare this, with >> Bahaullah, his character, his morals and the means he has employed to >> propagate Bahaism. Can anyone ever call him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and >> ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy)? >> >> And to think Bahaism has come to abrogate Islam! Why are the Bahais so >> insidious in their approach ? If Bahaism is such a ‘beautiful’ religion >> then why use such means ? Why don’t they attract the people with this so >> called beauty ? What is the need to resort to such guile ? Never in the >> history of the Divine religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was such a >> mode of propagation permitted. On the contrary Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), >> and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Moses (PBUH), etc. always adopted >> sincerity in their approach and never cared to simply enhance the >> strength of their followers. In fact certain prophets had only a handful >> of followers, inspite of preaching for hundreds of years. Adam (PBUH) had >> preached for 930 years and managed to gather a negligible number of >> followers. As it is widely known even Prophet Noah (PBUH) at the time of >> the deluge had only eighty companions on his ark. Noah (PBUH) had >> preached for 950 years. Even Prophet Abraham (PBUH) after years of >> preaching could muster, but a few disciples. Even Prophet Jesus (PBUH) >> after all his exhortations and appeals had only twelve close disciples. >> Yet he never adopted deception to counter the Pharisees, who were >> thirsty for his blood. As a matter of fact a close study of past prophets >> will tell us that most, if not all, had only a paltry number of >> followers. However none of the Prophets took recourse to such populist >> measures even in the face of severe persecution. >> >> Incident 6 >> Besides praying ‘Namaaz’ along with the Muslims, the Bahai missionaries >> also employed other means such as becoming disciples/followers of >> renowned Muslim sages. >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani mentions on pg. 27 of the same book “az Yazd be >> Kaashshaan wa Tehran raft wa dar Tehran bejahat satr wa hifz wa ameed wa >> iqbaale izhaar iradat bejanaab ustad Ghulam Rezaae Shishe gar mar shud >> mashur muslim namud” ‘During my journey to Iran, I traveled from Yazd to >> Kaashaan and from there to Tehran. In Tehran, I visited a prominent >> Muslim sage/soothsayer, Ghulam Reza Shishah, and entered his fold. By >> doing this I hoped on one hand, to conceal my identity and on the other, >> to convert that sage/soothsayer.’ Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani was indeed a >> very intelligent missionary. He realised that if he was successful in >> converting a prominent Muslim sage, it would only be matter of time >> before all the other followers/disciples followed suit. Another example >> of Bahai guile. This is where the Muslim Ulamas (scholars) have to be >> careful. Because if even one Aalim (scholar) falls prey to such Bahai >> cunning, their students/companions are most likely to emulate them. More >> incidents of a similar nature can be found on pg. 50 >> >> Incident 7 >> Mulla Ali Akbar was among students of Mulla Muhammad Sadiq. He was the >> leader (Imam-e-Jam’aat) of the mosque in Shiraz. And from the pulpit he >> used to announce the claim of ‘Mahdi’ of Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi ( >> Hazrat Aala). This was done with utmost discretion. Indeed what can be of >> greater danger to the Muslims that Bahaai propoganda is carried from >> their places of worship. The consummation of this dissumulation is very >> aptly described by Abbas Affandi in his book “Al Kaukabe Durriyah” (pg. >> 452) “peyusteh een taaefeh dar har dastgaahraah dashtand wa az kaar har >> keesi agaah budeh chandaan keh az harm saraae sultaanee har raaz nahaaee >> betawassit bahaaiyyaan keh dar pardeh een mastur daair medaad amur bedabd >> baraae ishaan makshuf meegasht” >> >> “the result was that the Bahaais had spread their tentacles everywhere. >> And they were aware of everyone’s activities. To the extent that the >> discreet affairs of the women in the king’s harem were known to them >> through the Bahaais who were employed with in the palaces” This then was >> the extent of espionage among the Bahais at that time. And it is shocking >> to say the least. >> >> And what is even more shocking is that Abdul Bahaa himself is the one >> admitting it. And he does seem to confess it without any regret or >> remorse. As if he was proud of the Bahaai network functioning at that >> time. >> >> Dissimulation in the Sayings of Abbas Affandi (Abdul Bahaa) >> >> 1) In Bahaism preaching discreetly has been emphasised to the extent that >> Abdul Bahaa has mentioned in his book ‘Makaatab’ vol. 3, pg. 327 ‘Hiding >> your faith has been made obligatory upon you’. Also the author of >> ‘Nuktatul Qaaf’, Mirza Jaani writes on pg. 211 of the same book ‘The >> father was concealing his faith from the son and the son from his father >> and the people of his house.’ >> >> 2)Abbas Affandi writes in a letter to Shaykh Farjullah Zaki who was sent >> to Egypt for preaching ‘Bahaullah has made haraam (forbidden) the >> preaching of Islam in Egypt. It is required that Bahai friends keep low >> for a while. And even if someone questions about the Faith, they should >> pretend to be unaware of it.’ This letter was written on October 22, 1921 >> >> 3)This decree on preaching in a concealed manner has been expressed >> further in no uncertain terms by Abdul Bahaa in his “Makaatab” vol. 3 pg. >> 496 to Shaikh Mohiddeen Kardi, “masaaile hakeemeh ra asaas tazkereh >> karaar dheed na aqaaed ra” ‘..while trying to incline the thoughts >> (towards Bahaism), priority must be given to skills, rather than >> fundamentals (of the Faith).’ >> >> What can be more unsettling than a decree like this one issued by none >> other than the successor of Bahaullah??? Again this fashion of >> propagation is alien to the divine faiths, where all the past prophets >> had emphasised strictly on fundamentals of the religion. At no point of >> time did the prophets ever make any concessions on the principles. They >> were prepared to sacrifice their lives but unprepared to comprise on the >> foundation of religion. Again we see that the Bahai philosophy is the >> exact antithesis of the Sunnah of the earlier prophets. >> >> This, then, was the mode employed by the Bahais to spread the Faith. And >> it is very much in vogue till date in certain countries, like Indonesia. >> And that is very disturbing. It is a cause for concern for all Muslims. >> As it is said an hidden enemy is more dangerous than a thousand open >> enemies. The objective of this article was to make evident this hidden >> enemy, as it is also said ‘forewarned is forearmed’. >> >> In article <35AA54BB.392@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, >> osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu says... >> > "When the smoke and dust cleared away after the [first] volley, Bab was >> > not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the >> > skies -- The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he >> > was dragged from the recess where after some search, he was discovered, >> > and shot." >> > (From a correspondence F.O. 60/152 [in the Foreign Office] sent by Lt. >> > Col. Sheil to Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, on July >> > 22, 1850 as quoted in H.M. Balyuzi's, _THE BAB: THE HERALD OF THE DAY OF >> > DAYS_, [George Ronald, Oxford, 1973], p. 202) >> > >> > At midday on 9 July 1850, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, known as the Bab ("Gate >> > [of Faith]") was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz, Iran. Aside from >> > its religious significance to Baha'is (who observed the anniversary of >> > the Martyrdom of the Bab last Thursday), this event has interesting >> > historical aspects, one of which is that it was actually the second >> > firing squad charged with His execution that accomplished the deed -- >> > the Bab having survived the first one. >> > >> > A brief account of the Bab's Martyrdom is given in Esselmont's >> > _BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA_ begins on p. 17 (scroll down or "Find" >> > martyr twice) at: >> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/NewEra/2.html >> > >> > The account of the event in Shoghi Effendi's _GOD PASSES BY_ can be read >> > at (one may begin at the paragraph numbered 4): >> > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GPB/GPB-5.html#Page_51 >> > >> > The account in Nabil-i-Zarandi (aka Nabil-i-Azam)'s _THE DAWNBREAKERS_ >> > (including photographs of some of the key people and places in the >> > drama) is at: >> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/DAWN/chapters/23.html >> > >> > Baha'is believe that the Bab, who announced on 23 May 1844 His mission >> > as the Herald of another Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, was Himself >> > also a Messenger of God. More information can be read at: >> > https://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=8200&CL=1 >> > (or if this doesn't work, go to https://www.bahai.org/ , "enter," and >> > then search "Bab"). >> > >> > Hope this is of interest... >> > >> > DZO >> > >> > Don Osborn osborndo [at] @pilot.msu.edu >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > "The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies >> > the rise and fall of cultures." Frederick Polak >> > >> > "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is >> > as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha > >-- >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:34 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: bahai dissimulation or "hikmat" -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:33 AM Subject: bahai dissimulation or "hikmat" >fyi > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Amir Butler >Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:25 AM >Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab, 9 July 1850 > > >>You might find the article on dissimulation on my web site >>of interest. I would respond to you on soc.religion.bahai but >>the "moderators" have forbidden any messages from me that >>contain my signature file at the end of this message: >> >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm >> >> >> >>Amir Butler wrote: >>> >>> Date sent: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:14:22 +1000 >>> Organization: Edge-Internet-Services >>> >>> Bahais as is their wont make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, like ‘the >>> Bahai Faith is in perfect harmony with other Divine faiths like Islam, >>> Judaism, Christianity, etc.’, ‘....we have come to unite mankind on one >>> platform without any bias and prejudice’, ‘...we wish to establish unity, >>> peace and equality among the people’. These and such other statements >>> though apparently very noble are masked with deception. To make the >>> Bahais as well as non-Bahais aware of this deception was felt necessary. >>> >>> This article was written with this very objective in mind. Mentioned >>> below are a series of incidents that will distinctly underline my >>> claims. Hopefully at the end, this article will leave the reader more >>> enlightened. >>> >>> Bahais give credence to disguising their Faith from the common gullible >>> populace, disclosing it, only once they convert to Bahaism. This practice >>> is described as ‘Dissimulation’. As per principles of ‘Taqaiya’, Bahais >>> conceal their Faith (or are at least permitted to conceal their Faith), >>> if it serves their interests. (This practice was actually followed in >>> Indonesia quite successfully. But when they had got too widespread and >>> the Government got wise they were driven out.) >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, one of Bahaism’s most renowned missionaries, >>> has written a book ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (in Persian) in 1914 A.H. His >>> treatise is considered noteworthy among the Bahais. This book was written >>> by him under explicit instructions from Abbas Affandi.. Mirza Haider Ali >>> Isfahani is buried in Akka (the Bahai Mecca) near Bahaullah’s tomb. >>> >>> In his book (Bombay edition) he states that ‘ ...when Bahaullah sent me >>> to Istanbul on Abdul Bahaa’s recommendation for preaching Bahaism there >>> he advised me “...you should meet the masses with tact and your meeting >>> with me should be disclosed in a very nonchalant manner, so they are not >>> alarmed. And at all times bear in mind never to disclose your wealth, >>> your destination and your religion, and implement this till the last >>> possibility”’ >>> >>> Further in his book Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani has mentioned many meetings >>> with the populace where he has strictly abided by Bahaullah’s edict i.e. >>> concealing the faith. I have made an attempt below wherein such incidents >>> are mentioned that will make evident to my readers the objective behind >>> this dissumilation >>> >>> Incident 1 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates ‘When I was condemned in Egypt and the >>> people said about me “az deene Islam kharij shudeh ast wa deene aaeene >>> jadeedee bid’at namudeh ast” “... this man has forsaken the religion of >>> Islam and accepted a new religion”, I wrote a letter to the police >>> officer saying “with selfishness and the malice which they bore towards >>> us have blamed us of following a new religion and a new book. But after a >>> thorough scrutiny of facts, the falsehood of these accusations will be >>> as evident for the king as the midday sun”’ (Pg. 107) But he himself >>> later mentions on pg. 184 ‘...it was made apparent with clear proofs (to >>> one person) about the culmination of Islam and the advent of a new >>> religion’. The deceit in the two statements mentioned above is also as >>> evident as the midday sun , wherein, on one hand Mirza Haider Ali >>> Isfahani vociferously denies his (new) faith and on the other he makes >>> apparent to others this very (new) faith. >>> >>> Incident 2 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates on pg. 86-88 of the same book that ... >>> after I had been appointed as a missionary by Bahaullah for preaching the >>> religion of Bahaism and I arrived in Egypt, the Iranians protested that >>> “you have abandoned your belief on the Finality of Prophethood (Khatame >>> Nabuwwat) and forsaken Islam and Muslims and you preach that Muhammad >>> (PBUH) is not the last Prophet.” Then I told them, “baraaye tabligh naya >>> aamdeheem wa khud ra qaabile eenkeh nisbat mo’mineen een amr badheem >>> namee daaneem ta cheh rasd bemuballageen” “....I have not come to preach >>> Bahaism, let alone being a Bahai, I do not consider myself equal to even >>> a simple Bahai’ >>> >>> Again, the doublespeak in Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words is >>> unmistakable. He denies his Bahai inclination when he himself was >>> appointed by Bahaullah on the counsel of Abbas Affandi as a missionary. >>> (Pg. 83) Then why this contradiction ??? This hypocrisy is in stark >>> contrast with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said “Lie is >>> the key to all evil”. No where does one find a single instance of Prophet >>> Muhammad (PBUH) or Prophet Jesus (PBUH) advising their disciples to lie >>> about their faith to the gullible so as to spread the message of Islam or >>> Christianity. In fact Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to say "Refrain from >>> lying even if it to your benefit, and always speak the truth even if it >>> to your detriment". But we find Bahaullah and his successor advocating >>> the philosophy of 'dissimulation' that totally contradicts the philosophy >>> of the divine 'abrogated' religions. An institution based on lies and >>> deceit can hardly be expected to survive for long, even though it may >>> seem beneficial in the short term. This is something the Bahais must >>> realise. Simply, increasing one’s numbers is a very short sighted >>> approach. >>> >>> The Bahais must focus more on resolving the glaring discrepancies >>> inherent in their faith that I have mentioned in my earlier articles. >>> They should not be too concerned about numbers. People will come to the >>> Faith, provided the truth is with them. >>> >>> Incident 3 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, was once called to meet the Shah of Iran, >>> Shujaaudaulah. The latter had got wind of Bahai activism . Mirza Haider >>> Ali Isfahani as was his wont, did not disclose his identity. However, >>> unable to conceal his enthusiasm, in the course of his meeting, he >>> extolled the virtues of Akka. Shujaaudaulah, a very perceptive >>> individual, remarked that “..unless a person is a Bahai, he will not >>> speak such. You are a Bahai, however you are loathe to disclose it”. But >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani keeping Bahaullah’s admonition in mind tried to >>> deceive the Shah by saying “agar faanee mo’min wa mo’kin ast baayad >>> hazratash dar jameea jahaat etaa’at konam” “If I am a Bahai and have >>> (truely) accepted the Faith, then I must observe all the commands of >>> Hazrat Bahaullah” (Behjatoos Sudoor Pg. 196) However by concealing his >>> true identity (from the Shah) he has indeed observed one of the basic >>> tenets of dissumulation laid down by Bahaullah. >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words: “We have shattered the Muslims” , >>> coupled with the Bahai deceit and dissimulation with the Muslims (and >>> others) bear ample testimony to his and Bahaullah’s intentions. Bahai >>> missionaries then as well today, propagate with this objective. These >>> words of Mirza Haider Ali Isfaani should serve as a warning for people >>> across all faiths especially the Muslims. Muslim Ulamas (scholars) should >>> take the initiative in this matter. They should study more about the >>> Bahai faith and launch an awareness campaign amongst the common gullible >>> Muslims. Protecting the faith (Imaan) of common Muslims in this era from >>> attacks of Bahai missionaries (like Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani) is >>> crucial. >>> >>> Incident 4 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani recounts on pg. 206-7 of the same book ‘...I >>> alongwith two other Bahais, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq had >>> gathered at a place in Iran. In the morning, the Muslims had besieged the >>> place. I handed over all the important documents regarding Bahaism to my >>> companions and surrendered myself to the Muslims. They took me to a house >>> outside the city and warned me that if I do not give them all the >>> important documents to them they would cut me into pieces. >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani deceived them by saying that “..at midnight >>> yesterday, a man representing Shah Shujaauduallah had come, and I >>> surrendered everything to him.” Consequently I was spared and my two >>> companions meanwhile, also made good their escape with the documents.’ >>> >>> Incident 5 >>> The Bahais to preach their Faith among the Muslims, even go to the extent >>> of praying ‘Namaaz’ with Muslims. >>> >>> This is in stark violation of the Bahai tenet which strictly forbids a >>> Bahai from praying like the Muslims. Let alone ‘Namaaz’ they are not even >>> permitted even to perform their ablutions (Wuzu) like the Muslims. This >>> is quite evident, as Bahaullah claims to have abrogated Islam. However, >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani states in ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (Pg. 97) “ faanee >>> wa Mirza Hussain Shirazi wa Darvesh Hussain sab meeaad bakhaaneh concal >>> fateem wa nazde u wa aakhareen ham dar zaahir aadaabe Islam laahifz me >>> namud zilm wa lu yatee bekitaabe jadeed wa shorue jadeed ra ham bedaleel >>> aafakeeh wa anfaseeh saabit me kard” ‘One night I, Mirza Hussain Shirazi >>> and Darvesh Hussain met at the residence of the council as planned. I >>> used to prove the veracity of the new Book (Aqdas) and the new religion >>> (Bahaism) with hidden as well as apparent proofs as the religion of Islam >>> was abrogated. However we prayed ‘Namaaz’ at the residence of the council >>> in a manner similar to the other Muslims. And we always did this in front >>> of others (non-Muslims) as well’ >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani and his fellow missionaries went to the extent >>> of contravening the Bahai principle just to convert a few Muslims. They >>> performed an unlawful act (as per their Faith) only to get close to the >>> Muslims. Why did they resort to such deceitful ways to propagate ? Or did >>> they believe that so long as the ends justify the means, then everything >>> is permissible ? >>> >>> This mode of propagation of Bahaism is indeed strange. Never did Prophet >>> Muhammad (PBUH) advice the missionaries to pretend to pray along with the >>> Jews (of his time), although the Jews were Islam’s sworn enemies. He >>> always used words of kindness and compassion with the people and >>> attracted them towards Islam with his excellent morals. Quran says “We >>> have created the Prophet as an excellent examplar for you” To the extent >>> that even the bloodthirsty infidels used to call Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) >>> him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy). Now compare this, with >>> Bahaullah, his character, his morals and the means he has employed to >>> propagate Bahaism. Can anyone ever call him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and >>> ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy)? >>> >>> And to think Bahaism has come to abrogate Islam! Why are the Bahais so >>> insidious in their approach ? If Bahaism is such a ‘beautiful’ religion >>> then why use such means ? Why don’t they attract the people with this so >>> called beauty ? What is the need to resort to such guile ? Never in the >>> history of the Divine religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was such a >>> mode of propagation permitted. On the contrary Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), >>> and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Moses (PBUH), etc. always adopted >>> sincerity in their approach and never cared to simply enhance the >>> strength of their followers. In fact certain prophets had only a handful >>> of followers, inspite of preaching for hundreds of years. Adam (PBUH) had >>> preached for 930 years and managed to gather a negligible number of >>> followers. As it is widely known even Prophet Noah (PBUH) at the time of >>> the deluge had only eighty companions on his ark. Noah (PBUH) had >>> preached for 950 years. Even Prophet Abraham (PBUH) after years of >>> preaching could muster, but a few disciples. Even Prophet Jesus (PBUH) >>> after all his exhortations and appeals had only twelve close disciples. >>> Yet he never adopted deception to counter the Pharisees, who were >>> thirsty for his blood. As a matter of fact a close study of past prophets >>> will tell us that most, if not all, had only a paltry number of >>> followers. However none of the Prophets took recourse to such populist >>> measures even in the face of severe persecution. >>> >>> Incident 6 >>> Besides praying ‘Namaaz’ along with the Muslims, the Bahai missionaries >>> also employed other means such as becoming disciples/followers of >>> renowned Muslim sages. >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani mentions on pg. 27 of the same book “az Yazd be >>> Kaashshaan wa Tehran raft wa dar Tehran bejahat satr wa hifz wa ameed wa >>> iqbaale izhaar iradat bejanaab ustad Ghulam Rezaae Shishe gar mar shud >>> mashur muslim namud” ‘During my journey to Iran, I traveled from Yazd to >>> Kaashaan and from there to Tehran. In Tehran, I visited a prominent >>> Muslim sage/soothsayer, Ghulam Reza Shishah, and entered his fold. By >>> doing this I hoped on one hand, to conceal my identity and on the other, >>> to convert that sage/soothsayer.’ Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani was indeed a >>> very intelligent missionary. He realised that if he was successful in >>> converting a prominent Muslim sage, it would only be matter of time >>> before all the other followers/disciples followed suit. Another example >>> of Bahai guile. This is where the Muslim Ulamas (scholars) have to be >>> careful. Because if even one Aalim (scholar) falls prey to such Bahai >>> cunning, their students/companions are most likely to emulate them. More >>> incidents of a similar nature can be found on pg. 50 >>> >>> Incident 7 >>> Mulla Ali Akbar was among students of Mulla Muhammad Sadiq. He was the >>> leader (Imam-e-Jam’aat) of the mosque in Shiraz. And from the pulpit he >>> used to announce the claim of ‘Mahdi’ of Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi ( >>> Hazrat Aala). This was done with utmost discretion. Indeed what can be of >>> greater danger to the Muslims that Bahaai propoganda is carried from >>> their places of worship. The consummation of this dissumulation is very >>> aptly described by Abbas Affandi in his book “Al Kaukabe Durriyah” (pg. >>> 452) “peyusteh een taaefeh dar har dastgaahraah dashtand wa az kaar har >>> keesi agaah budeh chandaan keh az harm saraae sultaanee har raaz nahaaee >>> betawassit bahaaiyyaan keh dar pardeh een mastur daair medaad amur bedabd >>> baraae ishaan makshuf meegasht” >>> >>> “the result was that the Bahaais had spread their tentacles everywhere. >>> And they were aware of everyone’s activities. To the extent that the >>> discreet affairs of the women in the king’s harem were known to them >>> through the Bahaais who were employed with in the palaces” This then was >>> the extent of espionage among the Bahais at that time. And it is shocking >>> to say the least. >>> >>> And what is even more shocking is that Abdul Bahaa himself is the one >>> admitting it. And he does seem to confess it without any regret or >>> remorse. As if he was proud of the Bahaai network functioning at that >>> time. >>> >>> Dissimulation in the Sayings of Abbas Affandi (Abdul Bahaa) >>> >>> 1) In Bahaism preaching discreetly has been emphasised to the extent that >>> Abdul Bahaa has mentioned in his book ‘Makaatab’ vol. 3, pg. 327 ‘Hiding >>> your faith has been made obligatory upon you’. Also the author of >>> ‘Nuktatul Qaaf’, Mirza Jaani writes on pg. 211 of the same book ‘The >>> father was concealing his faith from the son and the son from his father >>> and the people of his house.’ >>> >>> 2)Abbas Affandi writes in a letter to Shaykh Farjullah Zaki who was sent >>> to Egypt for preaching ‘Bahaullah has made haraam (forbidden) the >>> preaching of Islam in Egypt. It is required that Bahai friends keep low >>> for a while. And even if someone questions about the Faith, they should >>> pretend to be unaware of it.’ This letter was written on October 22, 1921 >>> >>> 3)This decree on preaching in a concealed manner has been expressed >>> further in no uncertain terms by Abdul Bahaa in his “Makaatab” vol. 3 pg. >>> 496 to Shaikh Mohiddeen Kardi, “masaaile hakeemeh ra asaas tazkereh >>> karaar dheed na aqaaed ra” ‘..while trying to incline the thoughts >>> (towards Bahaism), priority must be given to skills, rather than >>> fundamentals (of the Faith).’ >>> >>> What can be more unsettling than a decree like this one issued by none >>> other than the successor of Bahaullah??? Again this fashion of >>> propagation is alien to the divine faiths, where all the past prophets >>> had emphasised strictly on fundamentals of the religion. At no point of >>> time did the prophets ever make any concessions on the principles. They >>> were prepared to sacrifice their lives but unprepared to comprise on the >>> foundation of religion. Again we see that the Bahai philosophy is the >>> exact antithesis of the Sunnah of the earlier prophets. >>> >>> This, then, was the mode employed by the Bahais to spread the Faith. And >>> it is very much in vogue till date in certain countries, like Indonesia. >>> And that is very disturbing. It is a cause for concern for all Muslims. >>> As it is said an hidden enemy is more dangerous than a thousand open >>> enemies. The objective of this article was to make evident this hidden >>> enemy, as it is also said ‘forewarned is forearmed’. >>> >>> In article <35AA54BB.392@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, >>> osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu says... >>> > "When the smoke and dust cleared away after the [first] volley, Bab was >>> > not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the >>> > skies -- The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he >>> > was dragged from the recess where after some search, he was discovered, >>> > and shot." >>> > (From a correspondence F.O. 60/152 [in the Foreign Office] sent by Lt. >>> > Col. Sheil to Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, on July >>> > 22, 1850 as quoted in H.M. Balyuzi's, _THE BAB: THE HERALD OF THE DAY >OF >>> > DAYS_, [George Ronald, Oxford, 1973], p. 202) >>> > >>> > At midday on 9 July 1850, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, known as the Bab ("Gate >>> > [of Faith]") was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz, Iran. Aside >from >>> > its religious significance to Baha'is (who observed the anniversary of >>> > the Martyrdom of the Bab last Thursday), this event has interesting >>> > historical aspects, one of which is that it was actually the second >>> > firing squad charged with His execution that accomplished the deed -- >>> > the Bab having survived the first one. >>> > >>> > A brief account of the Bab's Martyrdom is given in Esselmont's >>> > _BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA_ begins on p. 17 (scroll down or "Find" >>> > martyr twice) at: >>> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/NewEra/2.html >>> > >>> > The account of the event in Shoghi Effendi's _GOD PASSES BY_ can be >read >>> > at (one may begin at the paragraph numbered 4): >>> > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GPB/GPB-5.html#Page_51 >>> > >>> > The account in Nabil-i-Zarandi (aka Nabil-i-Azam)'s _THE DAWNBREAKERS_ >>> > (including photographs of some of the key people and places in the >>> > drama) is at: >>> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/DAWN/chapters/23.html >>> > >>> > Baha'is believe that the Bab, who announced on 23 May 1844 His mission >>> > as the Herald of another Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, was Himself >>> > also a Messenger of God. More information can be read at: >>> > https://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=8200&CL=1 >>> > (or if this doesn't work, go to https://www.bahai.org/ , "enter," and >>> > then search "Bab"). >>> > >>> > Hope this is of interest... >>> > >>> > DZO >>> > >>> > Don Osborn osborndo [at] @pilot.msu.edu >>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > "The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies >>> > the rise and fall of cultures." Frederick Polak >>> > >>> > "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is >>> > as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:38 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: small request, if you would.... Fran, I've tried seven times since yesterday morning to post this message to alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc without success while I've been able to post other messages without any trouble. Would you consider forwarding this for me? I don't know what the problem is. I'd appreciate it. If you would, just cut all of this top message to you and post the original below. Thanks for your recent words. Or, if it's on your server, just let me know.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 11:58 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: small request, if you would.... Dear Fred, At last I get to return the favor I have so often asked of you! I would be glad to post for you on alt.religion.bahai and will do so right away. Unfortunately, I am unable to post on talk.religion.misc. I just tested this out and got this result: =================================================================== Article not accepted by server; not posted. Postings to "talk.religion.misc" are not allowed here./usr/local/lib/nn/inews failed Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter Your article follows: Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: test Just testing. =================================================================== I experienced this yesterday, too, when I responded to someone's mistaken belief that publishing received correspondence is illegal. Warm regards, Fran PS By the way, I have been watching srb and noticed a variety of posts that do not refer to Baha'i scripture. My conclusion is that you can post anything there, no matter how ignorant and stupid, as long as it does not question Baha'i practices. For example, I can't post observations about why "teaching" conversations can fail, but someone can post that it is not God's will that a woman enter the workforce, stay single, and live with a cat or two! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 1:35 PM To: Editor Reuters; United Press International; New York Times Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 1:39 PM Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan If more than one copy of this turns up on alt.religion.bahai, I apologize. It seems I've been able to post any message but this one the last few days.... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Editor Reuters ; United Press International ; New York Times Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 1:35 PM Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com >Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:48 AM >Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan > > >>First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >>alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm >> >>Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >>statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >>independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >>feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >>not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >>to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >>"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >>who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >>the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >>intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >>lines. The message may be on my web site. >> >>The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >>on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >>implications.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: J. Michael Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >>Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >> >> >>>Dear Frederick: >>> >>>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of >his >>>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you >share >>>it with me. Thank you. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>>Michael K. >>> >>> >> >> >> >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 4:13 PM To: support@newsguy.com Subject: posting service compromise? I've had a lot of trouble posting a message to alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc for some reason during the last two days. Yet I have been able to post several other messages. I'm concerned that my connection to newsguy.com has been compromised in some way. Is it technically possible for someone to intercept my postings to a newsgroup through your service and prevent it from ever appearing? I also attempted three times using a dejanews.com account. Given the sensitivity of the topic, I believe there are many Baha'is who would like to prevent any discussion of it. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ 1st attempt: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan >First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on >alt.religion.bahai or my web site: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own >statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, >independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, >feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might >not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs >to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too >"liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole >who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in >the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely >intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist >lines. The message may be on my web site. > >The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks >on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible >implications.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J. Michael Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > > >>Dear Frederick: >> >>I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >>and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >>sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >>she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >>forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >>more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >>death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >>it with me. Thank you. >> >>Best wishes, >>Michael K. >> >> > > 2nd attempt: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan 3rd attempt: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan 4th attempt: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: FW Re: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 9:56 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: [bahai-faith] Re murder of Baha'i leader Dr. Daniel Jordan Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I've tried seven times since yesterday morning to post > this message to alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc Done. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 6:50 AM Subject: Bahai dissimulation or "hikmat" fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Amir Butler Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab, 9 July 1850 >You might find the article on dissimulation on my web site >of interest. I would respond to you on soc.religion.bahai but >the "moderators" have forbidden any messages from me that >contain my signature file at the end of this message: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm > > > >Amir Butler wrote: >> >> Date sent: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:14:22 +1000 >> Organization: Edge-Internet-Services >> >> Bahais as is their wont make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, like ‘the >> Bahai Faith is in perfect harmony with other Divine faiths like Islam, >> Judaism, Christianity, etc.’, ‘....we have come to unite mankind on one >> platform without any bias and prejudice’, ‘...we wish to establish unity, >> peace and equality among the people’. These and such other statements >> though apparently very noble are masked with deception. To make the >> Bahais as well as non-Bahais aware of this deception was felt necessary. >> >> This article was written with this very objective in mind. Mentioned >> below are a series of incidents that will distinctly underline my >> claims. Hopefully at the end, this article will leave the reader more >> enlightened. >> >> Bahais give credence to disguising their Faith from the common gullible >> populace, disclosing it, only once they convert to Bahaism. This practice >> is described as ‘Dissimulation’. As per principles of ‘Taqaiya’, Bahais >> conceal their Faith (or are at least permitted to conceal their Faith), >> if it serves their interests. (This practice was actually followed in >> Indonesia quite successfully. But when they had got too widespread and >> the Government got wise they were driven out.) >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, one of Bahaism’s most renowned missionaries, >> has written a book ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (in Persian) in 1914 A.H. His >> treatise is considered noteworthy among the Bahais. This book was written >> by him under explicit instructions from Abbas Affandi.. Mirza Haider Ali >> Isfahani is buried in Akka (the Bahai Mecca) near Bahaullah’s tomb. >> >> In his book (Bombay edition) he states that ‘ ...when Bahaullah sent me >> to Istanbul on Abdul Bahaa’s recommendation for preaching Bahaism there >> he advised me “...you should meet the masses with tact and your meeting >> with me should be disclosed in a very nonchalant manner, so they are not >> alarmed. And at all times bear in mind never to disclose your wealth, >> your destination and your religion, and implement this till the last >> possibility”’ >> >> Further in his book Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani has mentioned many meetings >> with the populace where he has strictly abided by Bahaullah’s edict i.e. >> concealing the faith. I have made an attempt below wherein such incidents >> are mentioned that will make evident to my readers the objective behind >> this dissumilation >> >> Incident 1 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates ‘When I was condemned in Egypt and the >> people said about me “az deene Islam kharij shudeh ast wa deene aaeene >> jadeedee bid’at namudeh ast” “... this man has forsaken the religion of >> Islam and accepted a new religion”, I wrote a letter to the police >> officer saying “with selfishness and the malice which they bore towards >> us have blamed us of following a new religion and a new book. But after a >> thorough scrutiny of facts, the falsehood of these accusations will be >> as evident for the king as the midday sun”’ (Pg. 107) But he himself >> later mentions on pg. 184 ‘...it was made apparent with clear proofs (to >> one person) about the culmination of Islam and the advent of a new >> religion’. The deceit in the two statements mentioned above is also as >> evident as the midday sun , wherein, on one hand Mirza Haider Ali >> Isfahani vociferously denies his (new) faith and on the other he makes >> apparent to others this very (new) faith. >> >> Incident 2 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates on pg. 86-88 of the same book that ... >> after I had been appointed as a missionary by Bahaullah for preaching the >> religion of Bahaism and I arrived in Egypt, the Iranians protested that >> “you have abandoned your belief on the Finality of Prophethood (Khatame >> Nabuwwat) and forsaken Islam and Muslims and you preach that Muhammad >> (PBUH) is not the last Prophet.” Then I told them, “baraaye tabligh naya >> aamdeheem wa khud ra qaabile eenkeh nisbat mo’mineen een amr badheem >> namee daaneem ta cheh rasd bemuballageen” “....I have not come to preach >> Bahaism, let alone being a Bahai, I do not consider myself equal to even >> a simple Bahai’ >> >> Again, the doublespeak in Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words is >> unmistakable. He denies his Bahai inclination when he himself was >> appointed by Bahaullah on the counsel of Abbas Affandi as a missionary. >> (Pg. 83) Then why this contradiction ??? This hypocrisy is in stark >> contrast with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said “Lie is >> the key to all evil”. No where does one find a single instance of Prophet >> Muhammad (PBUH) or Prophet Jesus (PBUH) advising their disciples to lie >> about their faith to the gullible so as to spread the message of Islam or >> Christianity. In fact Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to say "Refrain from >> lying even if it to your benefit, and always speak the truth even if it >> to your detriment". But we find Bahaullah and his successor advocating >> the philosophy of 'dissimulation' that totally contradicts the philosophy >> of the divine 'abrogated' religions. An institution based on lies and >> deceit can hardly be expected to survive for long, even though it may >> seem beneficial in the short term. This is something the Bahais must >> realise. Simply, increasing one’s numbers is a very short sighted >> approach. >> >> The Bahais must focus more on resolving the glaring discrepancies >> inherent in their faith that I have mentioned in my earlier articles. >> They should not be too concerned about numbers. People will come to the >> Faith, provided the truth is with them. >> >> Incident 3 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, was once called to meet the Shah of Iran, >> Shujaaudaulah. The latter had got wind of Bahai activism . Mirza Haider >> Ali Isfahani as was his wont, did not disclose his identity. However, >> unable to conceal his enthusiasm, in the course of his meeting, he >> extolled the virtues of Akka. Shujaaudaulah, a very perceptive >> individual, remarked that “..unless a person is a Bahai, he will not >> speak such. You are a Bahai, however you are loathe to disclose it”. But >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani keeping Bahaullah’s admonition in mind tried to >> deceive the Shah by saying “agar faanee mo’min wa mo’kin ast baayad >> hazratash dar jameea jahaat etaa’at konam” “If I am a Bahai and have >> (truely) accepted the Faith, then I must observe all the commands of >> Hazrat Bahaullah” (Behjatoos Sudoor Pg. 196) However by concealing his >> true identity (from the Shah) he has indeed observed one of the basic >> tenets of dissumulation laid down by Bahaullah. >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words: “We have shattered the Muslims” , >> coupled with the Bahai deceit and dissimulation with the Muslims (and >> others) bear ample testimony to his and Bahaullah’s intentions. Bahai >> missionaries then as well today, propagate with this objective. These >> words of Mirza Haider Ali Isfaani should serve as a warning for people >> across all faiths especially the Muslims. Muslim Ulamas (scholars) should >> take the initiative in this matter. They should study more about the >> Bahai faith and launch an awareness campaign amongst the common gullible >> Muslims. Protecting the faith (Imaan) of common Muslims in this era from >> attacks of Bahai missionaries (like Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani) is >> crucial. >> >> Incident 4 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani recounts on pg. 206-7 of the same book ‘...I >> alongwith two other Bahais, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq had >> gathered at a place in Iran. In the morning, the Muslims had besieged the >> place. I handed over all the important documents regarding Bahaism to my >> companions and surrendered myself to the Muslims. They took me to a house >> outside the city and warned me that if I do not give them all the >> important documents to them they would cut me into pieces. >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani deceived them by saying that “..at midnight >> yesterday, a man representing Shah Shujaauduallah had come, and I >> surrendered everything to him.” Consequently I was spared and my two >> companions meanwhile, also made good their escape with the documents.’ >> >> Incident 5 >> The Bahais to preach their Faith among the Muslims, even go to the extent >> of praying ‘Namaaz’ with Muslims. >> >> This is in stark violation of the Bahai tenet which strictly forbids a >> Bahai from praying like the Muslims. Let alone ‘Namaaz’ they are not even >> permitted even to perform their ablutions (Wuzu) like the Muslims. This >> is quite evident, as Bahaullah claims to have abrogated Islam. However, >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani states in ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (Pg. 97) “ faanee >> wa Mirza Hussain Shirazi wa Darvesh Hussain sab meeaad bakhaaneh concal >> fateem wa nazde u wa aakhareen ham dar zaahir aadaabe Islam laahifz me >> namud zilm wa lu yatee bekitaabe jadeed wa shorue jadeed ra ham bedaleel >> aafakeeh wa anfaseeh saabit me kard” ‘One night I, Mirza Hussain Shirazi >> and Darvesh Hussain met at the residence of the council as planned. I >> used to prove the veracity of the new Book (Aqdas) and the new religion >> (Bahaism) with hidden as well as apparent proofs as the religion of Islam >> was abrogated. However we prayed ‘Namaaz’ at the residence of the council >> in a manner similar to the other Muslims. And we always did this in front >> of others (non-Muslims) as well’ >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani and his fellow missionaries went to the extent >> of contravening the Bahai principle just to convert a few Muslims. They >> performed an unlawful act (as per their Faith) only to get close to the >> Muslims. Why did they resort to such deceitful ways to propagate ? Or did >> they believe that so long as the ends justify the means, then everything >> is permissible ? >> >> This mode of propagation of Bahaism is indeed strange. Never did Prophet >> Muhammad (PBUH) advice the missionaries to pretend to pray along with the >> Jews (of his time), although the Jews were Islam’s sworn enemies. He >> always used words of kindness and compassion with the people and >> attracted them towards Islam with his excellent morals. Quran says “We >> have created the Prophet as an excellent examplar for you” To the extent >> that even the bloodthirsty infidels used to call Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) >> him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy). Now compare this, with >> Bahaullah, his character, his morals and the means he has employed to >> propagate Bahaism. Can anyone ever call him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and >> ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy)? >> >> And to think Bahaism has come to abrogate Islam! Why are the Bahais so >> insidious in their approach ? If Bahaism is such a ‘beautiful’ religion >> then why use such means ? Why don’t they attract the people with this so >> called beauty ? What is the need to resort to such guile ? Never in the >> history of the Divine religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was such a >> mode of propagation permitted. On the contrary Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), >> and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Moses (PBUH), etc. always adopted >> sincerity in their approach and never cared to simply enhance the >> strength of their followers. In fact certain prophets had only a handful >> of followers, inspite of preaching for hundreds of years. Adam (PBUH) had >> preached for 930 years and managed to gather a negligible number of >> followers. As it is widely known even Prophet Noah (PBUH) at the time of >> the deluge had only eighty companions on his ark. Noah (PBUH) had >> preached for 950 years. Even Prophet Abraham (PBUH) after years of >> preaching could muster, but a few disciples. Even Prophet Jesus (PBUH) >> after all his exhortations and appeals had only twelve close disciples. >> Yet he never adopted deception to counter the Pharisees, who were >> thirsty for his blood. As a matter of fact a close study of past prophets >> will tell us that most, if not all, had only a paltry number of >> followers. However none of the Prophets took recourse to such populist >> measures even in the face of severe persecution. >> >> Incident 6 >> Besides praying ‘Namaaz’ along with the Muslims, the Bahai missionaries >> also employed other means such as becoming disciples/followers of >> renowned Muslim sages. >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani mentions on pg. 27 of the same book “az Yazd be >> Kaashshaan wa Tehran raft wa dar Tehran bejahat satr wa hifz wa ameed wa >> iqbaale izhaar iradat bejanaab ustad Ghulam Rezaae Shishe gar mar shud >> mashur muslim namud” ‘During my journey to Iran, I traveled from Yazd to >> Kaashaan and from there to Tehran. In Tehran, I visited a prominent >> Muslim sage/soothsayer, Ghulam Reza Shishah, and entered his fold. By >> doing this I hoped on one hand, to conceal my identity and on the other, >> to convert that sage/soothsayer.’ Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani was indeed a >> very intelligent missionary. He realised that if he was successful in >> converting a prominent Muslim sage, it would only be matter of time >> before all the other followers/disciples followed suit. Another example >> of Bahai guile. This is where the Muslim Ulamas (scholars) have to be >> careful. Because if even one Aalim (scholar) falls prey to such Bahai >> cunning, their students/companions are most likely to emulate them. More >> incidents of a similar nature can be found on pg. 50 >> >> Incident 7 >> Mulla Ali Akbar was among students of Mulla Muhammad Sadiq. He was the >> leader (Imam-e-Jam’aat) of the mosque in Shiraz. And from the pulpit he >> used to announce the claim of ‘Mahdi’ of Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi ( >> Hazrat Aala). This was done with utmost discretion. Indeed what can be of >> greater danger to the Muslims that Bahaai propoganda is carried from >> their places of worship. The consummation of this dissumulation is very >> aptly described by Abbas Affandi in his book “Al Kaukabe Durriyah” (pg. >> 452) “peyusteh een taaefeh dar har dastgaahraah dashtand wa az kaar har >> keesi agaah budeh chandaan keh az harm saraae sultaanee har raaz nahaaee >> betawassit bahaaiyyaan keh dar pardeh een mastur daair medaad amur bedabd >> baraae ishaan makshuf meegasht” >> >> “the result was that the Bahaais had spread their tentacles everywhere. >> And they were aware of everyone’s activities. To the extent that the >> discreet affairs of the women in the king’s harem were known to them >> through the Bahaais who were employed with in the palaces” This then was >> the extent of espionage among the Bahais at that time. And it is shocking >> to say the least. >> >> And what is even more shocking is that Abdul Bahaa himself is the one >> admitting it. And he does seem to confess it without any regret or >> remorse. As if he was proud of the Bahaai network functioning at that >> time. >> >> Dissimulation in the Sayings of Abbas Affandi (Abdul Bahaa) >> >> 1) In Bahaism preaching discreetly has been emphasised to the extent that >> Abdul Bahaa has mentioned in his book ‘Makaatab’ vol. 3, pg. 327 ‘Hiding >> your faith has been made obligatory upon you’. Also the author of >> ‘Nuktatul Qaaf’, Mirza Jaani writes on pg. 211 of the same book ‘The >> father was concealing his faith from the son and the son from his father >> and the people of his house.’ >> >> 2)Abbas Affandi writes in a letter to Shaykh Farjullah Zaki who was sent >> to Egypt for preaching ‘Bahaullah has made haraam (forbidden) the >> preaching of Islam in Egypt. It is required that Bahai friends keep low >> for a while. And even if someone questions about the Faith, they should >> pretend to be unaware of it.’ This letter was written on October 22, 1921 >> >> 3)This decree on preaching in a concealed manner has been expressed >> further in no uncertain terms by Abdul Bahaa in his “Makaatab” vol. 3 pg. >> 496 to Shaikh Mohiddeen Kardi, “masaaile hakeemeh ra asaas tazkereh >> karaar dheed na aqaaed ra” ‘..while trying to incline the thoughts >> (towards Bahaism), priority must be given to skills, rather than >> fundamentals (of the Faith).’ >> >> What can be more unsettling than a decree like this one issued by none >> other than the successor of Bahaullah??? Again this fashion of >> propagation is alien to the divine faiths, where all the past prophets >> had emphasised strictly on fundamentals of the religion. At no point of >> time did the prophets ever make any concessions on the principles. They >> were prepared to sacrifice their lives but unprepared to comprise on the >> foundation of religion. Again we see that the Bahai philosophy is the >> exact antithesis of the Sunnah of the earlier prophets. >> >> This, then, was the mode employed by the Bahais to spread the Faith. And >> it is very much in vogue till date in certain countries, like Indonesia. >> And that is very disturbing. It is a cause for concern for all Muslims. >> As it is said an hidden enemy is more dangerous than a thousand open >> enemies. The objective of this article was to make evident this hidden >> enemy, as it is also said ‘forewarned is forearmed’. >> >> In article <35AA54BB.392@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, >> osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu says... >> > "When the smoke and dust cleared away after the [first] volley, Bab was >> > not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the >> > skies -- The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he >> > was dragged from the recess where after some search, he was discovered, >> > and shot." >> > (From a correspondence F.O. 60/152 [in the Foreign Office] sent by Lt. >> > Col. Sheil to Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, on July >> > 22, 1850 as quoted in H.M. Balyuzi's, _THE BAB: THE HERALD OF THE DAY OF >> > DAYS_, [George Ronald, Oxford, 1973], p. 202) >> > >> > At midday on 9 July 1850, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, known as the Bab ("Gate >> > [of Faith]") was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz, Iran. Aside from >> > its religious significance to Baha'is (who observed the anniversary of >> > the Martyrdom of the Bab last Thursday), this event has interesting >> > historical aspects, one of which is that it was actually the second >> > firing squad charged with His execution that accomplished the deed -- >> > the Bab having survived the first one. >> > >> > A brief account of the Bab's Martyrdom is given in Esselmont's >> > _BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA_ begins on p. 17 (scroll down or "Find" >> > martyr twice) at: >> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/NewEra/2.html >> > >> > The account of the event in Shoghi Effendi's _GOD PASSES BY_ can be read >> > at (one may begin at the paragraph numbered 4): >> > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GPB/GPB-5.html#Page_51 >> > >> > The account in Nabil-i-Zarandi (aka Nabil-i-Azam)'s _THE DAWNBREAKERS_ >> > (including photographs of some of the key people and places in the >> > drama) is at: >> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/DAWN/chapters/23.html >> > >> > Baha'is believe that the Bab, who announced on 23 May 1844 His mission >> > as the Herald of another Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, was Himself >> > also a Messenger of God. More information can be read at: >> > https://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=8200&CL=1 >> > (or if this doesn't work, go to https://www.bahai.org/ , "enter," and >> > then search "Bab"). >> > >> > Hope this is of interest... >> > >> > DZO >> > >> > Don Osborn osborndo [at] @pilot.msu.edu >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > "The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies >> > the rise and fall of cultures." Frederick Polak >> > >> > "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is >> > as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha > >-- >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: dissimulation and "hikmat" fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Amir Butler Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab, 9 July 1850 >You might find the article on dissimulation on my web site >of interest. I would respond to you on soc.religion.bahai but >the "moderators" have forbidden any messages from me that >contain my signature file at the end of this message: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm > > > >Amir Butler wrote: >> >> Date sent: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:14:22 +1000 >> Organization: Edge-Internet-Services >> >> Bahais as is their wont make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, like ‘the >> Bahai Faith is in perfect harmony with other Divine faiths like Islam, >> Judaism, Christianity, etc.’, ‘....we have come to unite mankind on one >> platform without any bias and prejudice’, ‘...we wish to establish unity, >> peace and equality among the people’. These and such other statements >> though apparently very noble are masked with deception. To make the >> Bahais as well as non-Bahais aware of this deception was felt necessary. >> >> This article was written with this very objective in mind. Mentioned >> below are a series of incidents that will distinctly underline my >> claims. Hopefully at the end, this article will leave the reader more >> enlightened. >> >> Bahais give credence to disguising their Faith from the common gullible >> populace, disclosing it, only once they convert to Bahaism. This practice >> is described as ‘Dissimulation’. As per principles of ‘Taqaiya’, Bahais >> conceal their Faith (or are at least permitted to conceal their Faith), >> if it serves their interests. (This practice was actually followed in >> Indonesia quite successfully. But when they had got too widespread and >> the Government got wise they were driven out.) >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, one of Bahaism’s most renowned missionaries, >> has written a book ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (in Persian) in 1914 A.H. His >> treatise is considered noteworthy among the Bahais. This book was written >> by him under explicit instructions from Abbas Affandi.. Mirza Haider Ali >> Isfahani is buried in Akka (the Bahai Mecca) near Bahaullah’s tomb. >> >> In his book (Bombay edition) he states that ‘ ...when Bahaullah sent me >> to Istanbul on Abdul Bahaa’s recommendation for preaching Bahaism there >> he advised me “...you should meet the masses with tact and your meeting >> with me should be disclosed in a very nonchalant manner, so they are not >> alarmed. And at all times bear in mind never to disclose your wealth, >> your destination and your religion, and implement this till the last >> possibility”’ >> >> Further in his book Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani has mentioned many meetings >> with the populace where he has strictly abided by Bahaullah’s edict i.e. >> concealing the faith. I have made an attempt below wherein such incidents >> are mentioned that will make evident to my readers the objective behind >> this dissumilation >> >> Incident 1 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates ‘When I was condemned in Egypt and the >> people said about me “az deene Islam kharij shudeh ast wa deene aaeene >> jadeedee bid’at namudeh ast” “... this man has forsaken the religion of >> Islam and accepted a new religion”, I wrote a letter to the police >> officer saying “with selfishness and the malice which they bore towards >> us have blamed us of following a new religion and a new book. But after a >> thorough scrutiny of facts, the falsehood of these accusations will be >> as evident for the king as the midday sun”’ (Pg. 107) But he himself >> later mentions on pg. 184 ‘...it was made apparent with clear proofs (to >> one person) about the culmination of Islam and the advent of a new >> religion’. The deceit in the two statements mentioned above is also as >> evident as the midday sun , wherein, on one hand Mirza Haider Ali >> Isfahani vociferously denies his (new) faith and on the other he makes >> apparent to others this very (new) faith. >> >> Incident 2 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates on pg. 86-88 of the same book that ... >> after I had been appointed as a missionary by Bahaullah for preaching the >> religion of Bahaism and I arrived in Egypt, the Iranians protested that >> “you have abandoned your belief on the Finality of Prophethood (Khatame >> Nabuwwat) and forsaken Islam and Muslims and you preach that Muhammad >> (PBUH) is not the last Prophet.” Then I told them, “baraaye tabligh naya >> aamdeheem wa khud ra qaabile eenkeh nisbat mo’mineen een amr badheem >> namee daaneem ta cheh rasd bemuballageen” “....I have not come to preach >> Bahaism, let alone being a Bahai, I do not consider myself equal to even >> a simple Bahai’ >> >> Again, the doublespeak in Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words is >> unmistakable. He denies his Bahai inclination when he himself was >> appointed by Bahaullah on the counsel of Abbas Affandi as a missionary. >> (Pg. 83) Then why this contradiction ??? This hypocrisy is in stark >> contrast with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said “Lie is >> the key to all evil”. No where does one find a single instance of Prophet >> Muhammad (PBUH) or Prophet Jesus (PBUH) advising their disciples to lie >> about their faith to the gullible so as to spread the message of Islam or >> Christianity. In fact Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to say "Refrain from >> lying even if it to your benefit, and always speak the truth even if it >> to your detriment". But we find Bahaullah and his successor advocating >> the philosophy of 'dissimulation' that totally contradicts the philosophy >> of the divine 'abrogated' religions. An institution based on lies and >> deceit can hardly be expected to survive for long, even though it may >> seem beneficial in the short term. This is something the Bahais must >> realise. Simply, increasing one’s numbers is a very short sighted >> approach. >> >> The Bahais must focus more on resolving the glaring discrepancies >> inherent in their faith that I have mentioned in my earlier articles. >> They should not be too concerned about numbers. People will come to the >> Faith, provided the truth is with them. >> >> Incident 3 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, was once called to meet the Shah of Iran, >> Shujaaudaulah. The latter had got wind of Bahai activism . Mirza Haider >> Ali Isfahani as was his wont, did not disclose his identity. However, >> unable to conceal his enthusiasm, in the course of his meeting, he >> extolled the virtues of Akka. Shujaaudaulah, a very perceptive >> individual, remarked that “..unless a person is a Bahai, he will not >> speak such. You are a Bahai, however you are loathe to disclose it”. But >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani keeping Bahaullah’s admonition in mind tried to >> deceive the Shah by saying “agar faanee mo’min wa mo’kin ast baayad >> hazratash dar jameea jahaat etaa’at konam” “If I am a Bahai and have >> (truely) accepted the Faith, then I must observe all the commands of >> Hazrat Bahaullah” (Behjatoos Sudoor Pg. 196) However by concealing his >> true identity (from the Shah) he has indeed observed one of the basic >> tenets of dissumulation laid down by Bahaullah. >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words: “We have shattered the Muslims” , >> coupled with the Bahai deceit and dissimulation with the Muslims (and >> others) bear ample testimony to his and Bahaullah’s intentions. Bahai >> missionaries then as well today, propagate with this objective. These >> words of Mirza Haider Ali Isfaani should serve as a warning for people >> across all faiths especially the Muslims. Muslim Ulamas (scholars) should >> take the initiative in this matter. They should study more about the >> Bahai faith and launch an awareness campaign amongst the common gullible >> Muslims. Protecting the faith (Imaan) of common Muslims in this era from >> attacks of Bahai missionaries (like Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani) is >> crucial. >> >> Incident 4 >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani recounts on pg. 206-7 of the same book ‘...I >> alongwith two other Bahais, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq had >> gathered at a place in Iran. In the morning, the Muslims had besieged the >> place. I handed over all the important documents regarding Bahaism to my >> companions and surrendered myself to the Muslims. They took me to a house >> outside the city and warned me that if I do not give them all the >> important documents to them they would cut me into pieces. >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani deceived them by saying that “..at midnight >> yesterday, a man representing Shah Shujaauduallah had come, and I >> surrendered everything to him.” Consequently I was spared and my two >> companions meanwhile, also made good their escape with the documents.’ >> >> Incident 5 >> The Bahais to preach their Faith among the Muslims, even go to the extent >> of praying ‘Namaaz’ with Muslims. >> >> This is in stark violation of the Bahai tenet which strictly forbids a >> Bahai from praying like the Muslims. Let alone ‘Namaaz’ they are not even >> permitted even to perform their ablutions (Wuzu) like the Muslims. This >> is quite evident, as Bahaullah claims to have abrogated Islam. However, >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani states in ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (Pg. 97) “ faanee >> wa Mirza Hussain Shirazi wa Darvesh Hussain sab meeaad bakhaaneh concal >> fateem wa nazde u wa aakhareen ham dar zaahir aadaabe Islam laahifz me >> namud zilm wa lu yatee bekitaabe jadeed wa shorue jadeed ra ham bedaleel >> aafakeeh wa anfaseeh saabit me kard” ‘One night I, Mirza Hussain Shirazi >> and Darvesh Hussain met at the residence of the council as planned. I >> used to prove the veracity of the new Book (Aqdas) and the new religion >> (Bahaism) with hidden as well as apparent proofs as the religion of Islam >> was abrogated. However we prayed ‘Namaaz’ at the residence of the council >> in a manner similar to the other Muslims. And we always did this in front >> of others (non-Muslims) as well’ >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani and his fellow missionaries went to the extent >> of contravening the Bahai principle just to convert a few Muslims. They >> performed an unlawful act (as per their Faith) only to get close to the >> Muslims. Why did they resort to such deceitful ways to propagate ? Or did >> they believe that so long as the ends justify the means, then everything >> is permissible ? >> >> This mode of propagation of Bahaism is indeed strange. Never did Prophet >> Muhammad (PBUH) advice the missionaries to pretend to pray along with the >> Jews (of his time), although the Jews were Islam’s sworn enemies. He >> always used words of kindness and compassion with the people and >> attracted them towards Islam with his excellent morals. Quran says “We >> have created the Prophet as an excellent examplar for you” To the extent >> that even the bloodthirsty infidels used to call Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) >> him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy). Now compare this, with >> Bahaullah, his character, his morals and the means he has employed to >> propagate Bahaism. Can anyone ever call him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and >> ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy)? >> >> And to think Bahaism has come to abrogate Islam! Why are the Bahais so >> insidious in their approach ? If Bahaism is such a ‘beautiful’ religion >> then why use such means ? Why don’t they attract the people with this so >> called beauty ? What is the need to resort to such guile ? Never in the >> history of the Divine religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was such a >> mode of propagation permitted. On the contrary Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), >> and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Moses (PBUH), etc. always adopted >> sincerity in their approach and never cared to simply enhance the >> strength of their followers. In fact certain prophets had only a handful >> of followers, inspite of preaching for hundreds of years. Adam (PBUH) had >> preached for 930 years and managed to gather a negligible number of >> followers. As it is widely known even Prophet Noah (PBUH) at the time of >> the deluge had only eighty companions on his ark. Noah (PBUH) had >> preached for 950 years. Even Prophet Abraham (PBUH) after years of >> preaching could muster, but a few disciples. Even Prophet Jesus (PBUH) >> after all his exhortations and appeals had only twelve close disciples. >> Yet he never adopted deception to counter the Pharisees, who were >> thirsty for his blood. As a matter of fact a close study of past prophets >> will tell us that most, if not all, had only a paltry number of >> followers. However none of the Prophets took recourse to such populist >> measures even in the face of severe persecution. >> >> Incident 6 >> Besides praying ‘Namaaz’ along with the Muslims, the Bahai missionaries >> also employed other means such as becoming disciples/followers of >> renowned Muslim sages. >> >> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani mentions on pg. 27 of the same book “az Yazd be >> Kaashshaan wa Tehran raft wa dar Tehran bejahat satr wa hifz wa ameed wa >> iqbaale izhaar iradat bejanaab ustad Ghulam Rezaae Shishe gar mar shud >> mashur muslim namud” ‘During my journey to Iran, I traveled from Yazd to >> Kaashaan and from there to Tehran. In Tehran, I visited a prominent >> Muslim sage/soothsayer, Ghulam Reza Shishah, and entered his fold. By >> doing this I hoped on one hand, to conceal my identity and on the other, >> to convert that sage/soothsayer.’ Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani was indeed a >> very intelligent missionary. He realised that if he was successful in >> converting a prominent Muslim sage, it would only be matter of time >> before all the other followers/disciples followed suit. Another example >> of Bahai guile. This is where the Muslim Ulamas (scholars) have to be >> careful. Because if even one Aalim (scholar) falls prey to such Bahai >> cunning, their students/companions are most likely to emulate them. More >> incidents of a similar nature can be found on pg. 50 >> >> Incident 7 >> Mulla Ali Akbar was among students of Mulla Muhammad Sadiq. He was the >> leader (Imam-e-Jam’aat) of the mosque in Shiraz. And from the pulpit he >> used to announce the claim of ‘Mahdi’ of Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi ( >> Hazrat Aala). This was done with utmost discretion. Indeed what can be of >> greater danger to the Muslims that Bahaai propoganda is carried from >> their places of worship. The consummation of this dissumulation is very >> aptly described by Abbas Affandi in his book “Al Kaukabe Durriyah” (pg. >> 452) “peyusteh een taaefeh dar har dastgaahraah dashtand wa az kaar har >> keesi agaah budeh chandaan keh az harm saraae sultaanee har raaz nahaaee >> betawassit bahaaiyyaan keh dar pardeh een mastur daair medaad amur bedabd >> baraae ishaan makshuf meegasht” >> >> “the result was that the Bahaais had spread their tentacles everywhere. >> And they were aware of everyone’s activities. To the extent that the >> discreet affairs of the women in the king’s harem were known to them >> through the Bahaais who were employed with in the palaces” This then was >> the extent of espionage among the Bahais at that time. And it is shocking >> to say the least. >> >> And what is even more shocking is that Abdul Bahaa himself is the one >> admitting it. And he does seem to confess it without any regret or >> remorse. As if he was proud of the Bahaai network functioning at that >> time. >> >> Dissimulation in the Sayings of Abbas Affandi (Abdul Bahaa) >> >> 1) In Bahaism preaching discreetly has been emphasised to the extent that >> Abdul Bahaa has mentioned in his book ‘Makaatab’ vol. 3, pg. 327 ‘Hiding >> your faith has been made obligatory upon you’. Also the author of >> ‘Nuktatul Qaaf’, Mirza Jaani writes on pg. 211 of the same book ‘The >> father was concealing his faith from the son and the son from his father >> and the people of his house.’ >> >> 2)Abbas Affandi writes in a letter to Shaykh Farjullah Zaki who was sent >> to Egypt for preaching ‘Bahaullah has made haraam (forbidden) the >> preaching of Islam in Egypt. It is required that Bahai friends keep low >> for a while. And even if someone questions about the Faith, they should >> pretend to be unaware of it.’ This letter was written on October 22, 1921 >> >> 3)This decree on preaching in a concealed manner has been expressed >> further in no uncertain terms by Abdul Bahaa in his “Makaatab” vol. 3 pg. >> 496 to Shaikh Mohiddeen Kardi, “masaaile hakeemeh ra asaas tazkereh >> karaar dheed na aqaaed ra” ‘..while trying to incline the thoughts >> (towards Bahaism), priority must be given to skills, rather than >> fundamentals (of the Faith).’ >> >> What can be more unsettling than a decree like this one issued by none >> other than the successor of Bahaullah??? Again this fashion of >> propagation is alien to the divine faiths, where all the past prophets >> had emphasised strictly on fundamentals of the religion. At no point of >> time did the prophets ever make any concessions on the principles. They >> were prepared to sacrifice their lives but unprepared to comprise on the >> foundation of religion. Again we see that the Bahai philosophy is the >> exact antithesis of the Sunnah of the earlier prophets. >> >> This, then, was the mode employed by the Bahais to spread the Faith. And >> it is very much in vogue till date in certain countries, like Indonesia. >> And that is very disturbing. It is a cause for concern for all Muslims. >> As it is said an hidden enemy is more dangerous than a thousand open >> enemies. The objective of this article was to make evident this hidden >> enemy, as it is also said ‘forewarned is forearmed’. >> >> In article <35AA54BB.392@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, >> osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu says... >> > "When the smoke and dust cleared away after the [first] volley, Bab was >> > not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the >> > skies -- The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he >> > was dragged from the recess where after some search, he was discovered, >> > and shot." >> > (From a correspondence F.O. 60/152 [in the Foreign Office] sent by Lt. >> > Col. Sheil to Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, on July >> > 22, 1850 as quoted in H.M. Balyuzi's, _THE BAB: THE HERALD OF THE DAY OF >> > DAYS_, [George Ronald, Oxford, 1973], p. 202) >> > >> > At midday on 9 July 1850, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, known as the Bab ("Gate >> > [of Faith]") was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz, Iran. Aside from >> > its religious significance to Baha'is (who observed the anniversary of >> > the Martyrdom of the Bab last Thursday), this event has interesting >> > historical aspects, one of which is that it was actually the second >> > firing squad charged with His execution that accomplished the deed -- >> > the Bab having survived the first one. >> > >> > A brief account of the Bab's Martyrdom is given in Esselmont's >> > _BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA_ begins on p. 17 (scroll down or "Find" >> > martyr twice) at: >> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/NewEra/2.html >> > >> > The account of the event in Shoghi Effendi's _GOD PASSES BY_ can be read >> > at (one may begin at the paragraph numbered 4): >> > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GPB/GPB-5.html#Page_51 >> > >> > The account in Nabil-i-Zarandi (aka Nabil-i-Azam)'s _THE DAWNBREAKERS_ >> > (including photographs of some of the key people and places in the >> > drama) is at: >> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/DAWN/chapters/23.html >> > >> > Baha'is believe that the Bab, who announced on 23 May 1844 His mission >> > as the Herald of another Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, was Himself >> > also a Messenger of God. More information can be read at: >> > https://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=8200&CL=1 >> > (or if this doesn't work, go to https://www.bahai.org/ , "enter," and >> > then search "Bab"). >> > >> > Hope this is of interest... >> > >> > DZO >> > >> > Don Osborn osborndo [at] @pilot.msu.edu >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > "The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies >> > the rise and fall of cultures." Frederick Polak >> > >> > "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is >> > as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha > >-- >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:30 AM To: Bob Subject: Re: Fwd: posting service compromise? Bob, I just posted to newsguy.test at 7:11am Eastern Standard Time July 29, 1998. I believe that would be 9:11 Pacific? Username is glaysher Password is p5760n A message I just posted to talk.religion.misc at 7:18am is at the end of this message with full header and body. Let me mention that I use for outgoing mail SMTP at hsmtp.hotmail.com and for incoming mail pop3 at pop.hotmail.com in case that helps. You may need to consider that, given the religious passion of people who want to stop my posts, they have found a way to compromise your system. It's hard for me to conclude otherwise. As I mentioned to you, I attempted to post the same message four times over two days, while successfully posting other messages to the same newsgroup, alt.religion.bahai. Could interception of my posts be done more easily because I use hotmail? Would some kind of a firewall help me? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Bob To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 9:56 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: posting service compromise? >Hi Frederick, > >*What Username and Password ID do you use to access Newsguy? > >*What news server address are you connecting and posting to? > >*Please attempt a single test post to the "newsguy.test" newsgroup, with a >Subject line that reads... "F.G. posting to "Bob@newsguy.com". Once you >make that post, send me the exact Time and Date you made the posting >(Pacific Standard Time). > >*Please attempt an ON-TOPIC posting to the "talk.religion.misc" >newsgroup, and send me the complete header (From, Subject, etc.) and >message body from that article. In addition, note the exact time/date (PST) >you made this post. > >As mentioned, the Newsguy servers have been supporting other newsgroup >postings without disruption, so the information requested above will be a >big help with determining why your specific posts might be running into a >problem. If you should have any additional questions, please let me know. > >In terms of intercepting posts, this would not be possible and our news >servers are not open to cancel/remove messages that Usenet users will try >to send from time to time to cancel a posted message within a newsgroup. >While other news sites may elect to honor those incoming cancel messages, >we do not for the obvious reason that many of those cancel requests are >bogus or done with malicious intent. > >Best regards, >Bob@newsguy.com POST MESSAGE TO TALK.RELIGION.MISC FOLLOWS: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: dissimulation and "hikmat" >fyi > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Amir Butler >Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:25 AM >Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab, 9 July 1850 > > >>You might find the article on dissimulation on my web site >>of interest. I would respond to you on soc.religion.bahai but >>the "moderators" have forbidden any messages from me that >>contain my signature file at the end of this message: >> >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm >> >> >> >>Amir Butler wrote: >>> >>> Date sent: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:14:22 +1000 >>> Organization: Edge-Internet-Services >>> >>> Bahais as is their wont make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, like ‘the >>> Bahai Faith is in perfect harmony with other Divine faiths like Islam, >>> Judaism, Christianity, etc.’, ‘....we have come to unite mankind on one >>> platform without any bias and prejudice’, ‘...we wish to establish unity, >>> peace and equality among the people’. These and such other statements >>> though apparently very noble are masked with deception. To make the >>> Bahais as well as non-Bahais aware of this deception was felt necessary. >>> >>> This article was written with this very objective in mind. Mentioned >>> below are a series of incidents that will distinctly underline my >>> claims. Hopefully at the end, this article will leave the reader more >>> enlightened. >>> >>> Bahais give credence to disguising their Faith from the common gullible >>> populace, disclosing it, only once they convert to Bahaism. This practice >>> is described as ‘Dissimulation’. As per principles of ‘Taqaiya’, Bahais >>> conceal their Faith (or are at least permitted to conceal their Faith), >>> if it serves their interests. (This practice was actually followed in >>> Indonesia quite successfully. But when they had got too widespread and >>> the Government got wise they were driven out.) >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, one of Bahaism’s most renowned missionaries, >>> has written a book ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (in Persian) in 1914 A.H. His >>> treatise is considered noteworthy among the Bahais. This book was written >>> by him under explicit instructions from Abbas Affandi.. Mirza Haider Ali >>> Isfahani is buried in Akka (the Bahai Mecca) near Bahaullah’s tomb. >>> >>> In his book (Bombay edition) he states that ‘ ...when Bahaullah sent me >>> to Istanbul on Abdul Bahaa’s recommendation for preaching Bahaism there >>> he advised me “...you should meet the masses with tact and your meeting >>> with me should be disclosed in a very nonchalant manner, so they are not >>> alarmed. And at all times bear in mind never to disclose your wealth, >>> your destination and your religion, and implement this till the last >>> possibility”’ >>> >>> Further in his book Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani has mentioned many meetings >>> with the populace where he has strictly abided by Bahaullah’s edict i.e. >>> concealing the faith. I have made an attempt below wherein such incidents >>> are mentioned that will make evident to my readers the objective behind >>> this dissumilation >>> >>> Incident 1 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates ‘When I was condemned in Egypt and the >>> people said about me “az deene Islam kharij shudeh ast wa deene aaeene >>> jadeedee bid’at namudeh ast” “... this man has forsaken the religion of >>> Islam and accepted a new religion”, I wrote a letter to the police >>> officer saying “with selfishness and the malice which they bore towards >>> us have blamed us of following a new religion and a new book. But after a >>> thorough scrutiny of facts, the falsehood of these accusations will be >>> as evident for the king as the midday sun”’ (Pg. 107) But he himself >>> later mentions on pg. 184 ‘...it was made apparent with clear proofs (to >>> one person) about the culmination of Islam and the advent of a new >>> religion’. The deceit in the two statements mentioned above is also as >>> evident as the midday sun , wherein, on one hand Mirza Haider Ali >>> Isfahani vociferously denies his (new) faith and on the other he makes >>> apparent to others this very (new) faith. >>> >>> Incident 2 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates on pg. 86-88 of the same book that ... >>> after I had been appointed as a missionary by Bahaullah for preaching the >>> religion of Bahaism and I arrived in Egypt, the Iranians protested that >>> “you have abandoned your belief on the Finality of Prophethood (Khatame >>> Nabuwwat) and forsaken Islam and Muslims and you preach that Muhammad >>> (PBUH) is not the last Prophet.” Then I told them, “baraaye tabligh naya >>> aamdeheem wa khud ra qaabile eenkeh nisbat mo’mineen een amr badheem >>> namee daaneem ta cheh rasd bemuballageen” “....I have not come to preach >>> Bahaism, let alone being a Bahai, I do not consider myself equal to even >>> a simple Bahai’ >>> >>> Again, the doublespeak in Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words is >>> unmistakable. He denies his Bahai inclination when he himself was >>> appointed by Bahaullah on the counsel of Abbas Affandi as a missionary. >>> (Pg. 83) Then why this contradiction ??? This hypocrisy is in stark >>> contrast with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said “Lie is >>> the key to all evil”. No where does one find a single instance of Prophet >>> Muhammad (PBUH) or Prophet Jesus (PBUH) advising their disciples to lie >>> about their faith to the gullible so as to spread the message of Islam or >>> Christianity. In fact Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to say "Refrain from >>> lying even if it to your benefit, and always speak the truth even if it >>> to your detriment". But we find Bahaullah and his successor advocating >>> the philosophy of 'dissimulation' that totally contradicts the philosophy >>> of the divine 'abrogated' religions. An institution based on lies and >>> deceit can hardly be expected to survive for long, even though it may >>> seem beneficial in the short term. This is something the Bahais must >>> realise. Simply, increasing one’s numbers is a very short sighted >>> approach. >>> >>> The Bahais must focus more on resolving the glaring discrepancies >>> inherent in their faith that I have mentioned in my earlier articles. >>> They should not be too concerned about numbers. People will come to the >>> Faith, provided the truth is with them. >>> >>> Incident 3 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, was once called to meet the Shah of Iran, >>> Shujaaudaulah. The latter had got wind of Bahai activism . Mirza Haider >>> Ali Isfahani as was his wont, did not disclose his identity. However, >>> unable to conceal his enthusiasm, in the course of his meeting, he >>> extolled the virtues of Akka. Shujaaudaulah, a very perceptive >>> individual, remarked that “..unless a person is a Bahai, he will not >>> speak such. You are a Bahai, however you are loathe to disclose it”. But >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani keeping Bahaullah’s admonition in mind tried to >>> deceive the Shah by saying “agar faanee mo’min wa mo’kin ast baayad >>> hazratash dar jameea jahaat etaa’at konam” “If I am a Bahai and have >>> (truely) accepted the Faith, then I must observe all the commands of >>> Hazrat Bahaullah” (Behjatoos Sudoor Pg. 196) However by concealing his >>> true identity (from the Shah) he has indeed observed one of the basic >>> tenets of dissumulation laid down by Bahaullah. >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words: “We have shattered the Muslims” , >>> coupled with the Bahai deceit and dissimulation with the Muslims (and >>> others) bear ample testimony to his and Bahaullah’s intentions. Bahai >>> missionaries then as well today, propagate with this objective. These >>> words of Mirza Haider Ali Isfaani should serve as a warning for people >>> across all faiths especially the Muslims. Muslim Ulamas (scholars) should >>> take the initiative in this matter. They should study more about the >>> Bahai faith and launch an awareness campaign amongst the common gullible >>> Muslims. Protecting the faith (Imaan) of common Muslims in this era from >>> attacks of Bahai missionaries (like Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani) is >>> crucial. >>> >>> Incident 4 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani recounts on pg. 206-7 of the same book ‘...I >>> alongwith two other Bahais, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq had >>> gathered at a place in Iran. In the morning, the Muslims had besieged the >>> place. I handed over all the important documents regarding Bahaism to my >>> companions and surrendered myself to the Muslims. They took me to a house >>> outside the city and warned me that if I do not give them all the >>> important documents to them they would cut me into pieces. >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani deceived them by saying that “..at midnight >>> yesterday, a man representing Shah Shujaauduallah had come, and I >>> surrendered everything to him.” Consequently I was spared and my two >>> companions meanwhile, also made good their escape with the documents.’ >>> >>> Incident 5 >>> The Bahais to preach their Faith among the Muslims, even go to the extent >>> of praying ‘Namaaz’ with Muslims. >>> >>> This is in stark violation of the Bahai tenet which strictly forbids a >>> Bahai from praying like the Muslims. Let alone ‘Namaaz’ they are not even >>> permitted even to perform their ablutions (Wuzu) like the Muslims. This >>> is quite evident, as Bahaullah claims to have abrogated Islam. However, >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani states in ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (Pg. 97) “ faanee >>> wa Mirza Hussain Shirazi wa Darvesh Hussain sab meeaad bakhaaneh concal >>> fateem wa nazde u wa aakhareen ham dar zaahir aadaabe Islam laahifz me >>> namud zilm wa lu yatee bekitaabe jadeed wa shorue jadeed ra ham bedaleel >>> aafakeeh wa anfaseeh saabit me kard” ‘One night I, Mirza Hussain Shirazi >>> and Darvesh Hussain met at the residence of the council as planned. I >>> used to prove the veracity of the new Book (Aqdas) and the new religion >>> (Bahaism) with hidden as well as apparent proofs as the religion of Islam >>> was abrogated. However we prayed ‘Namaaz’ at the residence of the council >>> in a manner similar to the other Muslims. And we always did this in front >>> of others (non-Muslims) as well’ >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani and his fellow missionaries went to the extent >>> of contravening the Bahai principle just to convert a few Muslims. They >>> performed an unlawful act (as per their Faith) only to get close to the >>> Muslims. Why did they resort to such deceitful ways to propagate ? Or did >>> they believe that so long as the ends justify the means, then everything >>> is permissible ? >>> >>> This mode of propagation of Bahaism is indeed strange. Never did Prophet >>> Muhammad (PBUH) advice the missionaries to pretend to pray along with the >>> Jews (of his time), although the Jews were Islam’s sworn enemies. He >>> always used words of kindness and compassion with the people and >>> attracted them towards Islam with his excellent morals. Quran says “We >>> have created the Prophet as an excellent examplar for you” To the extent >>> that even the bloodthirsty infidels used to call Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) >>> him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy). Now compare this, with >>> Bahaullah, his character, his morals and the means he has employed to >>> propagate Bahaism. Can anyone ever call him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and >>> ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy)? >>> >>> And to think Bahaism has come to abrogate Islam! Why are the Bahais so >>> insidious in their approach ? If Bahaism is such a ‘beautiful’ religion >>> then why use such means ? Why don’t they attract the people with this so >>> called beauty ? What is the need to resort to such guile ? Never in the >>> history of the Divine religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was such a >>> mode of propagation permitted. On the contrary Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), >>> and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Moses (PBUH), etc. always adopted >>> sincerity in their approach and never cared to simply enhance the >>> strength of their followers. In fact certain prophets had only a handful >>> of followers, inspite of preaching for hundreds of years. Adam (PBUH) had >>> preached for 930 years and managed to gather a negligible number of >>> followers. As it is widely known even Prophet Noah (PBUH) at the time of >>> the deluge had only eighty companions on his ark. Noah (PBUH) had >>> preached for 950 years. Even Prophet Abraham (PBUH) after years of >>> preaching could muster, but a few disciples. Even Prophet Jesus (PBUH) >>> after all his exhortations and appeals had only twelve close disciples. >>> Yet he never adopted deception to counter the Pharisees, who were >>> thirsty for his blood. As a matter of fact a close study of past prophets >>> will tell us that most, if not all, had only a paltry number of >>> followers. However none of the Prophets took recourse to such populist >>> measures even in the face of severe persecution. >>> >>> Incident 6 >>> Besides praying ‘Namaaz’ along with the Muslims, the Bahai missionaries >>> also employed other means such as becoming disciples/followers of >>> renowned Muslim sages. >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani mentions on pg. 27 of the same book “az Yazd be >>> Kaashshaan wa Tehran raft wa dar Tehran bejahat satr wa hifz wa ameed wa >>> iqbaale izhaar iradat bejanaab ustad Ghulam Rezaae Shishe gar mar shud >>> mashur muslim namud” ‘During my journey to Iran, I traveled from Yazd to >>> Kaashaan and from there to Tehran. In Tehran, I visited a prominent >>> Muslim sage/soothsayer, Ghulam Reza Shishah, and entered his fold. By >>> doing this I hoped on one hand, to conceal my identity and on the other, >>> to convert that sage/soothsayer.’ Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani was indeed a >>> very intelligent missionary. He realised that if he was successful in >>> converting a prominent Muslim sage, it would only be matter of time >>> before all the other followers/disciples followed suit. Another example >>> of Bahai guile. This is where the Muslim Ulamas (scholars) have to be >>> careful. Because if even one Aalim (scholar) falls prey to such Bahai >>> cunning, their students/companions are most likely to emulate them. More >>> incidents of a similar nature can be found on pg. 50 >>> >>> Incident 7 >>> Mulla Ali Akbar was among students of Mulla Muhammad Sadiq. He was the >>> leader (Imam-e-Jam’aat) of the mosque in Shiraz. And from the pulpit he >>> used to announce the claim of ‘Mahdi’ of Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi ( >>> Hazrat Aala). This was done with utmost discretion. Indeed what can be of >>> greater danger to the Muslims that Bahaai propoganda is carried from >>> their places of worship. The consummation of this dissumulation is very >>> aptly described by Abbas Affandi in his book “Al Kaukabe Durriyah” (pg. >>> 452) “peyusteh een taaefeh dar har dastgaahraah dashtand wa az kaar har >>> keesi agaah budeh chandaan keh az harm saraae sultaanee har raaz nahaaee >>> betawassit bahaaiyyaan keh dar pardeh een mastur daair medaad amur bedabd >>> baraae ishaan makshuf meegasht” >>> >>> “the result was that the Bahaais had spread their tentacles everywhere. >>> And they were aware of everyone’s activities. To the extent that the >>> discreet affairs of the women in the king’s harem were known to them >>> through the Bahaais who were employed with in the palaces” This then was >>> the extent of espionage among the Bahais at that time. And it is shocking >>> to say the least. >>> >>> And what is even more shocking is that Abdul Bahaa himself is the one >>> admitting it. And he does seem to confess it without any regret or >>> remorse. As if he was proud of the Bahaai network functioning at that >>> time. >>> >>> Dissimulation in the Sayings of Abbas Affandi (Abdul Bahaa) >>> >>> 1) In Bahaism preaching discreetly has been emphasised to the extent that >>> Abdul Bahaa has mentioned in his book ‘Makaatab’ vol. 3, pg. 327 ‘Hiding >>> your faith has been made obligatory upon you’. Also the author of >>> ‘Nuktatul Qaaf’, Mirza Jaani writes on pg. 211 of the same book ‘The >>> father was concealing his faith from the son and the son from his father >>> and the people of his house.’ >>> >>> 2)Abbas Affandi writes in a letter to Shaykh Farjullah Zaki who was sent >>> to Egypt for preaching ‘Bahaullah has made haraam (forbidden) the >>> preaching of Islam in Egypt. It is required that Bahai friends keep low >>> for a while. And even if someone questions about the Faith, they should >>> pretend to be unaware of it.’ This letter was written on October 22, 1921 >>> >>> 3)This decree on preaching in a concealed manner has been expressed >>> further in no uncertain terms by Abdul Bahaa in his “Makaatab” vol. 3 pg. >>> 496 to Shaikh Mohiddeen Kardi, “masaaile hakeemeh ra asaas tazkereh >>> karaar dheed na aqaaed ra” ‘..while trying to incline the thoughts >>> (towards Bahaism), priority must be given to skills, rather than >>> fundamentals (of the Faith).’ >>> >>> What can be more unsettling than a decree like this one issued by none >>> other than the successor of Bahaullah??? Again this fashion of >>> propagation is alien to the divine faiths, where all the past prophets >>> had emphasised strictly on fundamentals of the religion. At no point of >>> time did the prophets ever make any concessions on the principles. They >>> were prepared to sacrifice their lives but unprepared to comprise on the >>> foundation of religion. Again we see that the Bahai philosophy is the >>> exact antithesis of the Sunnah of the earlier prophets. >>> >>> This, then, was the mode employed by the Bahais to spread the Faith. And >>> it is very much in vogue till date in certain countries, like Indonesia. >>> And that is very disturbing. It is a cause for concern for all Muslims. >>> As it is said an hidden enemy is more dangerous than a thousand open >>> enemies. The objective of this article was to make evident this hidden >>> enemy, as it is also said ‘forewarned is forearmed’. >>> >>> In article <35AA54BB.392@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, >>> osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu says... >>> > "When the smoke and dust cleared away after the [first] volley, Bab was >>> > not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the >>> > skies -- The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he >>> > was dragged from the recess where after some search, he was discovered, >>> > and shot." >>> > (From a correspondence F.O. 60/152 [in the Foreign Office] sent by Lt. >>> > Col. Sheil to Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, on July >>> > 22, 1850 as quoted in H.M. Balyuzi's, _THE BAB: THE HERALD OF THE DAY >OF >>> > DAYS_, [George Ronald, Oxford, 1973], p. 202) >>> > >>> > At midday on 9 July 1850, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, known as the Bab ("Gate >>> > [of Faith]") was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz, Iran. Aside >from >>> > its religious significance to Baha'is (who observed the anniversary of >>> > the Martyrdom of the Bab last Thursday), this event has interesting >>> > historical aspects, one of which is that it was actually the second >>> > firing squad charged with His execution that accomplished the deed -- >>> > the Bab having survived the first one. >>> > >>> > A brief account of the Bab's Martyrdom is given in Esselmont's >>> > _BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA_ begins on p. 17 (scroll down or "Find" >>> > martyr twice) at: >>> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/NewEra/2.html >>> > >>> > The account of the event in Shoghi Effendi's _GOD PASSES BY_ can be >read >>> > at (one may begin at the paragraph numbered 4): >>> > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GPB/GPB-5.html#Page_51 >>> > >>> > The account in Nabil-i-Zarandi (aka Nabil-i-Azam)'s _THE DAWNBREAKERS_ >>> > (including photographs of some of the key people and places in the >>> > drama) is at: >>> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/DAWN/chapters/23.html >>> > >>> > Baha'is believe that the Bab, who announced on 23 May 1844 His mission >>> > as the Herald of another Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, was Himself >>> > also a Messenger of God. More information can be read at: >>> > https://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=8200&CL=1 >>> > (or if this doesn't work, go to https://www.bahai.org/ , "enter," and >>> > then search "Bab"). >>> > >>> > Hope this is of interest... >>> > >>> > DZO >>> > >>> > Don Osborn osborndo [at] @pilot.msu.edu >>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > "The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies >>> > the rise and fall of cultures." Frederick Polak >>> > >>> > "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is >>> > as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:31 AM To: smaneck@stetson.edu Subject: Re: Previously unrevealed Tablets Just a mention that I'm unable to respond on srb since the moderators have imposed a ban on anything from me that contains my signature file.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: smaneck@stetson.edu To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Previously unrevealed Tablets Dear Fred, I got a copy of my posting sent by you but no message from you. warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! Roger Reini wrote in message <35bfdec4.136427612@news.newsguy.com>... Ron House observes in a message available on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm that "I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over." I hope new comers to alt.religion.bahai will be able to see through this technique. It is the common one often noted as in the FAQ: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today." The same techniques are obviously being used again by Bahais on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com to demonize me and ignore the fact that several different people, apparently all members of the Bahai Faith, unbeknownst to each other, apparently all thought of the same fearful thing: that the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan may have possibly been by another Bahai, or ordered by one, or, God forbid, by a member of a the Bahai administration or a body of it.... These are the inevitable thoughts and consequences of censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience at every turn within the Bahai Faith. When people aren't permit to express their freely arrived at thoughts and feelins, they inevitably begin to wonder why and what motives those suppressing others really have. The storm of Bahai denial and attempts to portray me in a negative light speak for themselves. Notice that at no time have I accused Michael Kafes of knowing or committing anything in this regard. I have merely posted his message that reveals the fearful, distrustful, frightening environment that Bahais live in.... Instead of being concerned that someone might actually be able to solve a despicable crime, they have rushed to conceal it and to attack and accuse me personally.... Enough of this technique.... It would be best if talk.religion.bahai were created with the help of Bahais, but, if need be, it can be created without them.... Using this threat against talk.religion.bahai at this time is in itself quite revealing.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:10 AM To: United Press International; Letters to Editor; Editor Reuters; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: A Baha'i technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) Ron House observes in a message available on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm that "I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over." I hope new comers to alt.religion.bahai will be able to see through this technique. It is the common one often noted as in the FAQ: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today." The same techniques are obviously being used again by Bahais on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com to demonize me and ignore the fact that several different people, apparently all members of the Bahai Faith, unbeknownst to each other, apparently all thought of the same fearful thing: that the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan may have possibly been by another Bahai, or ordered by one, or, God forbid, by a member of a the Bahai administration or a body of it.... These are the inevitable thoughts and consequences of censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience at every turn within the Bahai Faith. When people aren't permit to express their freely arrived at thoughts and feelins, they inevitably begin to wonder why and what motives those suppressing others really have. The storm of Bahai denial and attempts to portray me in a negative light speak for themselves. Notice that at no time have I accused Michael Kafes of knowing or committing anything in this regard. I have merely posted his message that reveals the fearful, distrustful, frightening environment that Bahais live in.... Instead of being concerned that someone might actually be able to solve a despicable crime, they have rushed to conceal it and to attack and accuse me personally.... Enough of this technique.... It would be best if talk.religion.bahai were created with the help of Bahais, but, if need be, it can be created without them.... Using this threat against talk.religion.bahai at this time is in itself quite revealing.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 12:25 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: A Bahai technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > Fran, > I'm working on clipping the junk from your message > on my site. Sorry that bothers you. > I just thought it made it hard to follow. > Let me ask you to let me know if this message > doesn't turn up on your alt.religion.bahai > server before long. I posted it this morning. > > A technical person of my server has told me > it is possible for my messages to be cancelled. > It seems strange. I can forward anything > criticizing me but can't post anything in my > defense here lately. I'm hoping I'm wrong and > it's just a glitch of some sort. The tech > people are trying to figure it out for me. > > If it doesn't turn up soon, could you post > it for me too? Glad to, if necessary. See my comment below. --Fran > > Thanks! > > Fred > FG@hotmail.com > > (also posted to talk.religion.misc which I recall > you don't receive.) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was forwarded to you from Deja News by FG@hotmail.com. > Deja News, the discussion network, offers free web-based access to more than > 50,000 high-quality discussion forums. Come and visit us on the web at > https://www.dejanews.com/=zzz_maf/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (beginning of original message) > > Subject: A Bahai technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) > From: FG@my-dejanews.com > Date: 1998/07/29 > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai > Ron House observes in a message available on my web site at > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm that > > "I've found over the years that > there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and > others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so > much he says something intemperate, then point out > how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how > nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this > technique works, so I've been making a conscious > effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the > dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he > invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they > can REALLY let loose the venom over." Fred, Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works. You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary. > I hope new comers to alt.religion.bahai will be able to > see through this technique. It is the common one often > noted as in the FAQ: > > "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by > many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about > an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to > the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, > ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their > messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them > through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up > on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action > of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to > talk.religion.bahai." > > "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages > explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais > NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make > them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with > censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by > suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who > believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai > community as it exists today." > > The same techniques are obviously being used again by > Bahais on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com > to demonize me and ignore the fact that several different people, > apparently all members of the Bahai Faith, unbeknownst to each > other, apparently all thought of the same fearful thing: that the > murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan may have possibly been by another > Bahai, or ordered by one, or, God forbid, by a member of a > the Bahai administration or a body of it.... > > These are the inevitable thoughts and consequences of censorship > and suppression of free speech and conscience at every turn > within the Bahai Faith. When people aren't permit to express their > freely arrived at thoughts and feelins, they inevitably begin to > wonder why and what motives those suppressing others really have. > > The storm of Bahai denial and attempts to portray me in a negative > light speak for themselves. Notice that at no time have I accused > Michael Kafes of knowing or committing anything in this regard. > I have merely posted his message that reveals the fearful, distrustful, > frightening environment that Bahais live in.... Instead of being > concerned that someone might actually be able to solve a > despicable crime, they have rushed to conceal it and to attack and > accuse me personally.... > > Enough of this technique.... It would be best if talk.religion.bahai > were created with the help of Bahais, but, if need be, it can be > created without them.... Using this threat against talk.religion.bahai > at this time is in itself quite revealing.... > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, > talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) > Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum > > (end of original message) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > You can view this message and the related discussion by following this link: > https://www.dejanews.com/=zzz_maf/dnquery.xp?search=thread&svcclass=dnserver&recnum=%3c6pn3i8$av1$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com%3e%231/1 > We hope to see you soon at Deja News, the discussion network. > https://www.dejanews.com/=zzz_maf/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 1:40 PM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: A Bahai technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) Fran, I appreciate hearing your perspective on it. I'd like to add this to the FAQ as some else's view of the situation if you don't mind. I could make it annonymous if you prefer.... >Just have to say that in my experience this is a common >technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially >effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see >both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this >brow-beating technique to be form of abuse. The only way to >deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to >let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." >This can be very hard to do, but it works. >You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. >I don't whether it's possible when a group acts this way. >Very scary. > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 2:27 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: A Bahai technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Fran, > > I appreciate hearing your perspective on it. I'd like to add this > to the FAQ as some else's view of the situation if you don't mind. > I could make it annonymous if you prefer.... > > >Just have to say that in my experience this is a common > >technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially > >effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see > >both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this > >brow-beating technique to be form of abuse. The only way to > >deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to > >let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." > >This can be very hard to do, but it works. > >You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. > >I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. ^^^^ > >Very scary. > > Post away. Please just add the "know" I omitted. No need for anonymity, but I appreciate the consideration you have always shown. I did post your entry from this morning, as I didn't see it appear. --Fran "I'll stand by my testimony, whatever it was." --Watergate hearings ---------- From: FG@my-dejanews.com[SMTP:FG@my-dejanews.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:46 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] re hate mail (rlittle) I have to suggest that the real "hate mail" has been from Bahais; the current message from "Neo Luddite," who's obiviously hiding his true identity, is an example of this.... There are many others currently on arb all proclaiming their virtue while utterly ignoring the content of other people's opinions and their experience. Please see my web site for several examples of Bahai hate mail, threatening and harassing me, during the last year and a half: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm Fran Baker's remarks are worth considering in this context. She's alluding to what Ron House has referred to as a "technique" on the part of Bahais: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works. You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: rlittle33@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 2:54 PM Subject: hate mail ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: RobertNik@aol.com[SMTP:RobertNik@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:01 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship Hi, the SRB mod have succeeded in making me very irritated. Next time you want a vote on a free NG - contact me Ill vote yes. BTW who elects these guys? regards Robert ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:50 PM To: MGUNN1 Subject: Munster & Sunlight Mike, How's this for service!!!! Munster's a three bedroom but with a library and everything else, including a finished basement. Fred #00848857 AD:2581 MUNSTER RD W RESIDENTIAL NEW LP:$ 299,900S C:ROCHESTER HIL* 48309- MAP:AB-15 LOC:N AVON RD E ADAMS AREA:02151 DIR: PROT PERIOD:180 LOT SIZE:88X88X152X150 ACR: 0.00 FRONT FT: 88 BR: 3 BATH: 2 LAVS: 1 PROP ID: 15-17-328-015 SCH:ROCHESTER MBR:29X13 U LR:20X12 E LEGAL:MEADOWBROOK VALLEY SUB #2, LOT 93 BR2:18X11 U GR: TAX: SUM: 1,021 WIN: 2,065 ASN FEE:100/* HOMESTEAD:Y BR3:12X12 U FR:20X17 E YEAR BUILT: 1985 OTH/SPC : BR4: LB:13X11 E WATER NM: ADL DOC: POS:30-60 BR5: DR:14X10 E SFT: 2,606 LSF: SRC: EST BFT: KT:21X14 E REMARKS BEAUTIFUL PARK-LIKE SETTING-PRIVATE, WELL CARED FOR HOME IN LC N MEADOWBROOK VALLEY. AMENITIES INCLUDE LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, DWP: LIBRARY, FAMILY ROOM W/FIREPLACE, LARGE BRIGHT KITCHEN W/EATING PAY: AREA, BOTH 1ST FL. & 2ND FL. LAUNDRY, PROFESSIONALLY FINISHED INT: . BASEMENT, C/A, SPRINKLERS, DECK, NEUTRAL DECOR & MUCH MORE! WALK TRM:. TO SCHOOLS! MAKE THIS ONE A "MUST SEE"! FEATURES ROAD :PAVED WAT HET:GAS OTH RMS:BRKFST RM EXTFEAT:OUTSD LGHT EXTERI :BRICK BTH DS :1ST F LAV INTERI :HUMIDF FIRPLCE:FAM RM EXTERI :CEDAR BTH DS :2ND F BTH INTERI :SMP PUMP FIRPLCE:NATURAL ARCHIT :2-STORY BTH DS :MBR BTH APPLNC :STV GARAGE :2 CAR STYLE :COLONIAL OTH RMS:DINING RM APPLNC :DISHW GARAGE :ATT TERMS :CONV OTH RMS:1ST FL LAU APPLNC :DISPSL GARAGE :SIDE ENTRY TERMS :CASH OTH RMS:2ND FL LAU FOUND :BASEMENT GARAGE :OPENER FUEL :GAS OTH RMS:LIVING RM EXTFEAT:DECK BASEMNT:FINISHED HEATING:FRCD AIR OTH RMS:FAMILY RM EXTFEAT:PORCH SITE D :WOODED COOL :CENTRAL OTH RMS:LIBR/STDY EXTFEAT:SPRINKLR #00849971 AD:607 SUNLIGHT CT RESIDENTIAL NEW LP:$ 335,000S C:ROCHESTER HIL* 48309- MAP:AB-14 LOC:N WALTON E ADAMS AREA:02151 DIR:N.ON ADAMS FROM WALTON TO POWDERBORN R.TO SUNLIGHT 6FT TO CT PROT PERIOD:180 LOT SIZE:IRREG ACR: 0.00 FRONT FT: 0 BR: 4 BATH: 2 LAVS: 1 PROP ID: 1508178023 SCH:ROCHESTER MBR:18X14 U LR:15X21 E LEGAL:SHADOW WOODS SUBDIVISION NO.2 LOT 294 BR2:13X12 U GR: TAX: SUM: 3,000 WIN: ASN FEE:90 yr HOMESTEAD:Y BR3:13X12 U FR:14X21 E YEAR BUILT: 1981 OTH/SPC : BR4:12X12 U LB:11X13 E WATER NM: ADL DOC:N POS:NEG BR5: DR:10X13 E SFT: 2,800 LSF: SRC: MEASURED BFT:09X13 E KT:12X13 E COMP ARR: SUB AGENCY:Y 3 BUYER AGENCY:Y 3 NON AGENCY:Y 3 137611 C21 R E 217-OXFORD 248-628-4818 CNT:M. RIDDLE PH:248-628-4818 MICHAEL J. RIDDLE AGT: LD: 07/28/98 CO-LIST: ACC:APPT/LCKBX GAR:Y BA:Y FP:Y REMARKS IMMACULATE COLONIAL ON A BEAUTIFULLY TREE LINED PRIVATE COURT. LC N THIS 4 BEDROOM 2 1/2 BATH HOME HAS A SPACIOUS KITCHEN, FINISHED DWP: BASEMENT, & A BONUS FAMILY ROOM ON BACK! YARD IS WELL MAINTAINED PAY: WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEM, MATURE TREES AND PLAYSET IN BACKYARD. INT: . NEWER ROOF, FURNACE, AIR CLEANER HUMIDIFIER AND NEWLY STAINED TRM: EXTERIOR! MOST APPLIANCES ARE NEWER. FEATURES ROAD :PAVED WAT HET:GAS INTERI :HUMIDF WAT/SEW:SEW-SANIT EXTERI :BRICK BTH DS :1ST F LAV INTERI :SMP PUMP EXTFEAT:PATIO EXTERI :WOOD BTH DS :2ND F BTH APPLNC :STV EXTFEAT:SPRINKLR ARCHIT :2-STORY BTH DS :MBR BTH APPLNC :DISHW EXTFEAT:OUTSD LGHT STYLE :COLONIAL OTH RMS:DINING RM APPLNC :WASH FIRPLCE:GAS TERMS :CONV OTH RMS:1ST FL LAU APPLNC :DRY GARAGE :2 CAR TERMS :CASH OTH RMS:LIVING RM APPLNC :MICRO GARAGE :ATT FUEL :GAS OTH RMS:FAMILY RM APPLNC :DISPSL GARAGE :OPENER HEATING:FRCD AIR OTH RMS:LIBR/STDY FOUND :BASEMENT BASEMNT:FINISHED COOL :CENTRAL OTH RMS:BRKFST RM FOUND :CRAWL SITE D :IRREG COOL :ATTIC FAN INTERI :AIR CLEANR WAT/SEW:MUN WAT ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:59 PM To: RobertNik@aol.com Subject: Re: censorship The answer is NOBODY!! That's what bothers me too and why I've spent a year and a half working for an unmoderated forum for the Faith. The next vote will be probably late September. You might check out discussion or info on alt.religion.bahai or my web site. I'd be happy to post any messages you've had censored by srb on alt.religion.bahai. I'm sure other people there would be apreciate hearing from you too. May I repost this message to me? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: RobertNik@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:01 PM Subject: Re: censorship >Hi, >the SRB mod have succeeded in making me very irritated. >Next time you want a vote on a free NG - contact me Ill vote yes. > >BTW who elects these guys? > > >regards > >Robert > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 9:04 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] A Baha'i technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) I'm sorry it's irritated you and him so much. I forwarded it because I thought someone capable of greater knowledge of what's possibly relevant information and what isn't in an unsolved murder case ought to make the decisions, not me. And, as I've already suggested, it shows how rotten things really are in Denmark.... I apologize. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 6:09 AM To: RobertNik@aol.com Subject: Re: censorship talk.religion.bahai does not exist yet. It will be voted on after August 28th on alt.religion.bahai and news.groups which is the newsgroup for the creation of new ones. If you can't receive the alt.* hierarchy, you might subscribe to bahai-faith@makelist.com or use their archives for following the discussion. Also, a lot of the discussion can be found crossposted to talk.religion.misc which you might be able to get since it's on the talk.* hierarchy, a major one unlike alt.* Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: RobertNik@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 2:54 AM Subject: Re: censorship >You can post my mail if you leave my name out. > >BTW what is wrong with Talk.religion.bahai? >(I have no access to Alt.religion.bahai) > >Im not particularly bothered to be honest - this is just a hobby. I am very >irritated however. > >Robert > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 6:28 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: re hate mail (rlittle) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35BFBB0A.5AD7@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >FG@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> I have to suggest that the real "hate mail" has been >> from Bahais; the current message from "Neo Luddite," >> who's obiviously hiding his true identity, is an > >We've had a variety of phoney e-mail identities on this ng >(sadly common throughout usenet) with a variety of agendae. You and other Bahais just conveniently do nothing to either refute or censure such trolls, as was done by the BCCA with bahai@hotmail.com, and can be read on my web site as soon as xoom.com gets its ftp server back up and running.... > >> example of this.... There are many others currently >> on arb all proclaiming their virtue while utterly >> ignoring the content of other people's opinions and >> their experience. > >I think more often than not, it is not that people ignore >others' opinions, but disagree and choose not to engage >in argumentation; and that its not that people ignore >others' experience, but disagree over the interpretation >or explanation of it. False. Anymore, there's so much evidence of censorship in the Bahai Faith it's unbelievable.... If you're willing to look at and discuss specific examples, start on the srb page on my web site and work your way down in detail, please, sharing with us your interpretation.... Also, I don't recall ever reading >anyone on this ng "proclaiming their virtue" (which would >be at least as bad as someone denigrating someone else), See rlittle's messages. He's good at it.... >rather several have called on all to strive to observe the >letter and spirit of the Word of God (without putting >themselves above others). Implicit in the whole approach is a denigration of others opinions and views and a self-righteous, arrogant assumption of an unwarranted superior spiritual insight that closes its mind off.... > >> Please see my web site for several examples of Bahai >> hate mail, threatening and harassing me, during the last >> year and a half: > >I recall not long ago that several of us counselled someone >on this ng (perhaps "Neo-Luddite" under a previous identity?? No, I don't specifically recall. I don't recall either any Bahai saying a single word encouraging the person to identify himself or retract or apologize for his statements. >-- you may recall the thread) against re-posting or making a >web site of your messages, seeing that as not in keeping with >the teachings such as those relating to treating others with a >sin-covering eye. A spin that serves your own purposes here in this context.... >Hope this helps... > >DZO Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:01 AM Subject: A Bahai technique Ron House observes in a message available on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm that "I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over." I hope new comers to alt.religion.bahai will be able to see through this technique. It is the common one often noted as in the FAQ: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today." The same techniques are obviously being used again by Bahais on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com to demonize me and ignore the fact that several different people, apparently all members of the Bahai Faith, unbeknownst to each other, apparently all thought of the same fearful thing: that the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan may have possibly been by another Bahai, or ordered by one, or, God forbid, by a member of a the Bahai administration or a body of it.... These are the inevitable thoughts and consequences of censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience at every turn within the Bahai Faith. When people aren't permit to express their freely arrived at thoughts and feelins, they inevitably begin to wonder why and what motives those suppressing others really have. The storm of Bahai denial and attempts to portray me in a negative light speak for themselves. Notice that at no time have I accused Michael Kafes of knowing or committing anything in this regard. I have merely posted his message that reveals the fearful, distrustful, frightening environment that Bahais live in.... Instead of being concerned that someone might actually be able to solve a despicable crime, they have rushed to conceal it and to attack and accuse me personally.... Enough of this technique.... It would be best if talk.religion.bahai were created with the help of Bahais, but, if need be, it can be created without them.... Using this threat against talk.religion.bahai at this time is in itself quite revealing.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:04 AM Subject: Re: hate mail I have to suggest that the real "hate mail" has been from Bahais; the current message from "Neo Luddite," who's obiviously hiding his true identity, is an example of this.... There are many others currently on arb all proclaiming their virtue while utterly ignoring the content of other people's opinions and their experience. Please see my web site for several examples of Bahai hate mail, threatening and harassing me, during the last year and a half: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm Fran Baker's remarks are worth considering in this context. She's alluding to what Ron House has referred to as a "technique" on the part of Bahais: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works. You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: rlittle33@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 2:54 PM Subject: hate mail ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:06 AM Subject: Re: Posting service compromised? My apologies for posting the same message more than once lately. I seem to be having some kind of technical difficulty preventing posts from reaching my newsfeeder or appearing to. Tech people tell me they've made a few "tweaks" that now should help. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:12 AM Subject: fw : RobertNik@aol.com Re: censorship -----Original Message----- From: RobertNik@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:01 PM Subject: Re: censorship >Hi, >the SRB mod have succeeded in making me very irritated. >Next time you want a vote on a free NG - contact me Ill vote yes. > >BTW who elects these guys? > > >regards > >Robert > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 30, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:32 AM Subject: FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com July 30, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] A Baha'i technique -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] A Baha'i technique (was ENOUGH ALREADY!) >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Ron House observes in a message available on my web site at >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm that >> >> "I've found over the years that >> there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and >> others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so >> much he says something intemperate, then point out >> how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how >> nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this >> technique works, so I've been making a conscious >> effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the >> dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he >> invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they >> can REALLY let loose the venom over." >> >> I hope new comers to alt.religion.bahai will be able to >> see through this technique. It is the common one often >> noted as in the FAQ: >> >While I stand by what I said earlier, I also think it is >possible to be so 'put off' by injustices that are >committed to one that one loses perspective, seeing >malice where there is perhaps only carelessness or naivety. >In other words, I don't think that the majority of >Baha'is have malice in their hearts when they first >run into criticism of the BF and rush in to 'defend' >it against what they see as an attack. This must be so >because most Baha'is, due to the censorship that exists, >do not get to see the causes of the resentment in those >who are doing the 'attacking' (as I am sure Fred would >agree). For this reason I believe that those of us who >have seen or experienced the nasty side of the Baha'i >Faith must be extra careful to distinguish between >the various causes of the problems we see. Yes, I agree, many are indeed naive.... I believe the isolation of many Bahais within a narrow worldview, or, rather, interpretation of the Bahai Faith, is central to understanding why it is so difficult for them to begin to regain the ability to think critically and analytically about their own and others' experience.... > >> "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages >> explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais >> NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make >> them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with >> censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by >> suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who >> believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai >> community as it exists today." > >I agree 100%. Yes, alas.... See, though, Donald Osborn's statements on this. I'll forward them from arb. >> The same techniques are obviously being used again by >> Bahais on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com >> to demonize me and ignore the fact that several different people, >> apparently all members of the Bahai Faith, unbeknownst to each >> other, apparently all thought of the same fearful thing: that the >> murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan may have possibly been by another >> Bahai, or ordered by one, or, God forbid, by a member of a >> the Bahai administration or a body of it.... > >This doesn't make sense to me. Those occasions in the >history of the faith where a Baha'i has committed >violence have always been accompanied by bad >consequences for the Faith and denunciation by the >centre of the cause at the time, and they are always >represented in Baha'i texts as the wrong thing to do. >In any case, without evidence, repeating this merely >detracts from the credibility of the genuine criticisms >of the Faith, such as its becoming an 'external' >religion without a spiritual core. You're right about this, though there may be contrary evidence during the Babi period. You might want to read the article on "hikmat" or dissimulation on my web site in this regard: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm I agree with your "dead letter" perspective.... >> These are the inevitable thoughts and consequences of censorship >> and suppression of free speech and conscience at every turn >> within the Bahai Faith. When people aren't permit to express their >> freely arrived at thoughts and feelins, they inevitably begin to >> wonder why and what motives those suppressing others really have. > >True, but falling for it and making oneself a legitimate >target by giving rumour undeserved prominence without >evidence isn't smart. Widespread rumour regarding murder ought to give pause to anyone who is less than naive and at all capable of recognizing the complexity of human social and religious history, rife with duplicity, murder, and mayhem instituted by "spiritual" authorities and do-gooders.... Abdu'l-Baha put it so well, evil "continues and endures." > >> The storm of Bahai denial and attempts to portray me in a negative >> light speak for themselves. Notice that at no time have I accused >> Michael Kafes of knowing or committing anything in this regard. >> I have merely posted his message that reveals the fearful, distrustful, >> frightening environment that Bahais live in... > >But the Internet has one FIRM rule: don't post email >without getting the sender's permission - that's >GETTING, not ATTEMPTING TO GET. You broke >that rule, Fred, and you should apologise. I have. Incidentally, has anyone notice anyone asking "Neo Luddite" and such others to apologize to me? Or the several other Bahais who have attacked me with hate mail? https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm Is there any Bahai full of "love" and "compassion" willing to do so? > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: RobertNik@aol.com[SMTP:RobertNik@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:20 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship hi Ive just made posts to talk.religion.bahai. It does exist apparently ?? BTW - So do I presume that Soc.religion.bahai is personal property of Mr. Hymen and colleagues? Ill forward you his post. You can post it so long as you delete my name from it - these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO. In any case I dont particularly care. This is just a hobby, but I am very irritated. regards Robert ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:26 AM Subject: re murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan [Now that my server seems to be working again properly after a 3 day interruption, I'm reposting a few messages. Sorry if there's any duplication.] First, please read the last two paragraphs of the FAQ posted on alt.religion.bahai or my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Then, consider that I, justme@writeme.com, and, according to his own statement, several other people, all of us apparently Bahais, independently, from our individual experience of the Bahai Faith, feared and wondered whether the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan might not have been an "inside job." Reading the message again, it occurs to me that it is not unknown in religious history for someone to be too "liberal" of a thinker for his own good. I believe it was Dr. Juan Cole who observed on talisman some time ago that it was approximately in the mid-eighties that the Bahai Faith began to become an extremely intolerant and conservative religion along increasingly fundamentalist lines. The message may be on my web site. The Bahai storm of predictable accusations and ad hominem attacks on me should not be allowed to obscure the above facts and possible implications.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: J. Michael Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >Dear Frederick: > >I like Dan Jordan (He appears to me to have been a very liberal thinker, >and I love his book, "Becoming Your True Self") and have from numerous >sources that he was murdered, and a friend of mine told me personally that >she thinks it was an "inside" job, meaning within the Faith. She was not >forthcoming to me with any additional details, however. I do want to know >more about this. If you know anything surrounding the circumstances of his >death or come across any information, I would be very grateful if you share >it with me. Thank you. > >Best wishes, >Michael K. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:38 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: re hate mail (rlittle) I mention in a post on arb/trm for you to see Osborn's comments here. Perhaps you have though since I now see he posted to trm. Just in case, here they are again. Let me say thanks for your recent willingness to repost for me at a crucial time and for your candid views of late.... -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:15 PM Subject: Re: re hate mail (rlittle) >FG@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> I have to suggest that the real "hate mail" has been >> from Bahais; the current message from "Neo Luddite," >> who's obiviously hiding his true identity, is an > >We've had a variety of phoney e-mail identities on this ng >(sadly common throughout usenet) with a variety of agendae. > >> example of this.... There are many others currently >> on arb all proclaiming their virtue while utterly >> ignoring the content of other people's opinions and >> their experience. > >I think more often than not, it is not that people ignore >others' opinions, but disagree and choose not to engage >in argumentation; and that its not that people ignore >others' experience, but disagree over the interpretation >or explanation of it. Also, I don't recall ever reading >anyone on this ng "proclaiming their virtue" (which would >be at least as bad as someone denigrating someone else), >rather several have called on all to strive to observe the >letter and spirit of the Word of God (without putting >themselves above others). > >> Please see my web site for several examples of Bahai >> hate mail, threatening and harassing me, during the last >> year and a half: > >I recall not long ago that several of us counselled someone >on this ng (perhaps "Neo-Luddite" under a previous identity?? >-- you may recall the thread) against re-posting or making a >web site of your messages, seeing that as not in keeping with >the teachings such as those relating to treating others with a >sin-covering eye. > >Hope this helps... > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:26 AM To: RobertNik@aol.com Subject: Re: censorship The one that does exist is an illegal one created by enemies of establishing a legitimate talk.religion.bahai. The Usenet system administrators do not recognize and it therefore exists only on a few servers. When it passes a Usenet vote, hopefully this fall, they will then issue a command that creates it worldwide. I and others are recommending no one post to it. I'm forwarding to you the FAQ which has instructions on how to crosspost effectively by using talk.religion.misc and also including alt.religion.bahai in the header though you won't see it or read it there others will and can post back to you. -----Original Message----- From: RobertNik@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:20 AM Subject: Re: censorship >hi >Ive just made posts to talk.religion.bahai. >It does exist apparently ?? > >BTW - So do I presume that Soc.religion.bahai is personal property of Mr. >Hymen and colleagues? That's the story.... > >Ill forward you his post. You can post it so long as you delete my name from >it - these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO. I'll be glad to.... > >In any case I dont particularly care. This is just a hobby, but I am very >irritated. > >regards > >Robert > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:27 AM To: robertnik@aol.com Subject: Fw: FAQ -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:32 AM Subject: FAQ >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for >Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com >July 30, 1998 >This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc >makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* >hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. >Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to >bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email >access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. >Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and >repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of >talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup >on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. > >Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" > >ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy >of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to >access talk.religion.bahai. > >Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" > >ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list >bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. > >Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" > >ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are >continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to >soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and >religious conscience. > >ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] > >Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" > >ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place >here] > >Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and >conscience?" > >ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for >other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and >the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the >Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was >submitted to news.announce.newgroups. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm > >Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the >Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to >three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO >against talk.religion.bahai. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm > >March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of >talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in >effect more than a year and a half later. >March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to >691 NO. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm > >Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates >alt.religion.bahai. >October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases >a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated >newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm > >November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly >favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai >passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher >of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss >and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and >correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA >committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases >a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of >Usenet interest polling: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm > >January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was >submitted. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm > >February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES >to 65 NO. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm > >May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher >that contain his signature file. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other >issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the >Web site below. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >WEB SITE: >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >MAILING LIST: >bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription >& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: > >Donald Zhang Osborn: >"A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue >for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x >Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a >non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions >for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. >As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of >evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment >(understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and >that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that >virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of >environments)." > >Frederick Glaysher: >"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by >many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about >an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to >the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, >ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their >messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them >through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up >on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action >of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to >talk.religion.bahai." > >More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages >explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais >NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make >them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with >censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by >suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who >believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai >community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily >support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote >YES. > >Fran Baker: >"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common >technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially >effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both >sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating >technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is >to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat >up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard >to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal >relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group >acts this way. Very scary." > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: BCCA files now available Most of my archive is still down because of Xoom.com's ftp server being out. The BCCA files though are available again. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 10:23 AM Subject: dissimulation and "hikmat" -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: dissimulation and "hikmat" >fyi > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Amir Butler >Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:25 AM >Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab, 9 July 1850 > > >>You might find the article on dissimulation on my web site >>of interest. I would respond to you on soc.religion.bahai but >>the "moderators" have forbidden any messages from me that >>contain my signature file at the end of this message: >> >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hikmat.htm >> >> >> >>Amir Butler wrote: >>> >>> Date sent: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:14:22 +1000 >>> Organization: Edge-Internet-Services >>> >>> Bahais as is their wont make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, like ‘the >>> Bahai Faith is in perfect harmony with other Divine faiths like Islam, >>> Judaism, Christianity, etc.’, ‘....we have come to unite mankind on one >>> platform without any bias and prejudice’, ‘...we wish to establish unity, >>> peace and equality among the people’. These and such other statements >>> though apparently very noble are masked with deception. To make the >>> Bahais as well as non-Bahais aware of this deception was felt necessary. >>> >>> This article was written with this very objective in mind. Mentioned >>> below are a series of incidents that will distinctly underline my >>> claims. Hopefully at the end, this article will leave the reader more >>> enlightened. >>> >>> Bahais give credence to disguising their Faith from the common gullible >>> populace, disclosing it, only once they convert to Bahaism. This practice >>> is described as ‘Dissimulation’. As per principles of ‘Taqaiya’, Bahais >>> conceal their Faith (or are at least permitted to conceal their Faith), >>> if it serves their interests. (This practice was actually followed in >>> Indonesia quite successfully. But when they had got too widespread and >>> the Government got wise they were driven out.) >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, one of Bahaism’s most renowned missionaries, >>> has written a book ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (in Persian) in 1914 A.H. His >>> treatise is considered noteworthy among the Bahais. This book was written >>> by him under explicit instructions from Abbas Affandi.. Mirza Haider Ali >>> Isfahani is buried in Akka (the Bahai Mecca) near Bahaullah’s tomb. >>> >>> In his book (Bombay edition) he states that ‘ ...when Bahaullah sent me >>> to Istanbul on Abdul Bahaa’s recommendation for preaching Bahaism there >>> he advised me “...you should meet the masses with tact and your meeting >>> with me should be disclosed in a very nonchalant manner, so they are not >>> alarmed. And at all times bear in mind never to disclose your wealth, >>> your destination and your religion, and implement this till the last >>> possibility”’ >>> >>> Further in his book Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani has mentioned many meetings >>> with the populace where he has strictly abided by Bahaullah’s edict i.e. >>> concealing the faith. I have made an attempt below wherein such incidents >>> are mentioned that will make evident to my readers the objective behind >>> this dissumilation >>> >>> Incident 1 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates ‘When I was condemned in Egypt and the >>> people said about me “az deene Islam kharij shudeh ast wa deene aaeene >>> jadeedee bid’at namudeh ast” “... this man has forsaken the religion of >>> Islam and accepted a new religion”, I wrote a letter to the police >>> officer saying “with selfishness and the malice which they bore towards >>> us have blamed us of following a new religion and a new book. But after a >>> thorough scrutiny of facts, the falsehood of these accusations will be >>> as evident for the king as the midday sun”’ (Pg. 107) But he himself >>> later mentions on pg. 184 ‘...it was made apparent with clear proofs (to >>> one person) about the culmination of Islam and the advent of a new >>> religion’. The deceit in the two statements mentioned above is also as >>> evident as the midday sun , wherein, on one hand Mirza Haider Ali >>> Isfahani vociferously denies his (new) faith and on the other he makes >>> apparent to others this very (new) faith. >>> >>> Incident 2 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani narrates on pg. 86-88 of the same book that ... >>> after I had been appointed as a missionary by Bahaullah for preaching the >>> religion of Bahaism and I arrived in Egypt, the Iranians protested that >>> “you have abandoned your belief on the Finality of Prophethood (Khatame >>> Nabuwwat) and forsaken Islam and Muslims and you preach that Muhammad >>> (PBUH) is not the last Prophet.” Then I told them, “baraaye tabligh naya >>> aamdeheem wa khud ra qaabile eenkeh nisbat mo’mineen een amr badheem >>> namee daaneem ta cheh rasd bemuballageen” “....I have not come to preach >>> Bahaism, let alone being a Bahai, I do not consider myself equal to even >>> a simple Bahai’ >>> >>> Again, the doublespeak in Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words is >>> unmistakable. He denies his Bahai inclination when he himself was >>> appointed by Bahaullah on the counsel of Abbas Affandi as a missionary. >>> (Pg. 83) Then why this contradiction ??? This hypocrisy is in stark >>> contrast with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said “Lie is >>> the key to all evil”. No where does one find a single instance of Prophet >>> Muhammad (PBUH) or Prophet Jesus (PBUH) advising their disciples to lie >>> about their faith to the gullible so as to spread the message of Islam or >>> Christianity. In fact Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to say "Refrain from >>> lying even if it to your benefit, and always speak the truth even if it >>> to your detriment". But we find Bahaullah and his successor advocating >>> the philosophy of 'dissimulation' that totally contradicts the philosophy >>> of the divine 'abrogated' religions. An institution based on lies and >>> deceit can hardly be expected to survive for long, even though it may >>> seem beneficial in the short term. This is something the Bahais must >>> realise. Simply, increasing one’s numbers is a very short sighted >>> approach. >>> >>> The Bahais must focus more on resolving the glaring discrepancies >>> inherent in their faith that I have mentioned in my earlier articles. >>> They should not be too concerned about numbers. People will come to the >>> Faith, provided the truth is with them. >>> >>> Incident 3 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani, was once called to meet the Shah of Iran, >>> Shujaaudaulah. The latter had got wind of Bahai activism . Mirza Haider >>> Ali Isfahani as was his wont, did not disclose his identity. However, >>> unable to conceal his enthusiasm, in the course of his meeting, he >>> extolled the virtues of Akka. Shujaaudaulah, a very perceptive >>> individual, remarked that “..unless a person is a Bahai, he will not >>> speak such. You are a Bahai, however you are loathe to disclose it”. But >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani keeping Bahaullah’s admonition in mind tried to >>> deceive the Shah by saying “agar faanee mo’min wa mo’kin ast baayad >>> hazratash dar jameea jahaat etaa’at konam” “If I am a Bahai and have >>> (truely) accepted the Faith, then I must observe all the commands of >>> Hazrat Bahaullah” (Behjatoos Sudoor Pg. 196) However by concealing his >>> true identity (from the Shah) he has indeed observed one of the basic >>> tenets of dissumulation laid down by Bahaullah. >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani’s words: “We have shattered the Muslims” , >>> coupled with the Bahai deceit and dissimulation with the Muslims (and >>> others) bear ample testimony to his and Bahaullah’s intentions. Bahai >>> missionaries then as well today, propagate with this objective. These >>> words of Mirza Haider Ali Isfaani should serve as a warning for people >>> across all faiths especially the Muslims. Muslim Ulamas (scholars) should >>> take the initiative in this matter. They should study more about the >>> Bahai faith and launch an awareness campaign amongst the common gullible >>> Muslims. Protecting the faith (Imaan) of common Muslims in this era from >>> attacks of Bahai missionaries (like Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani) is >>> crucial. >>> >>> Incident 4 >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani recounts on pg. 206-7 of the same book ‘...I >>> alongwith two other Bahais, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq had >>> gathered at a place in Iran. In the morning, the Muslims had besieged the >>> place. I handed over all the important documents regarding Bahaism to my >>> companions and surrendered myself to the Muslims. They took me to a house >>> outside the city and warned me that if I do not give them all the >>> important documents to them they would cut me into pieces. >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani deceived them by saying that “..at midnight >>> yesterday, a man representing Shah Shujaauduallah had come, and I >>> surrendered everything to him.” Consequently I was spared and my two >>> companions meanwhile, also made good their escape with the documents.’ >>> >>> Incident 5 >>> The Bahais to preach their Faith among the Muslims, even go to the extent >>> of praying ‘Namaaz’ with Muslims. >>> >>> This is in stark violation of the Bahai tenet which strictly forbids a >>> Bahai from praying like the Muslims. Let alone ‘Namaaz’ they are not even >>> permitted even to perform their ablutions (Wuzu) like the Muslims. This >>> is quite evident, as Bahaullah claims to have abrogated Islam. However, >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani states in ‘Behjatus Sudoor’ (Pg. 97) “ faanee >>> wa Mirza Hussain Shirazi wa Darvesh Hussain sab meeaad bakhaaneh concal >>> fateem wa nazde u wa aakhareen ham dar zaahir aadaabe Islam laahifz me >>> namud zilm wa lu yatee bekitaabe jadeed wa shorue jadeed ra ham bedaleel >>> aafakeeh wa anfaseeh saabit me kard” ‘One night I, Mirza Hussain Shirazi >>> and Darvesh Hussain met at the residence of the council as planned. I >>> used to prove the veracity of the new Book (Aqdas) and the new religion >>> (Bahaism) with hidden as well as apparent proofs as the religion of Islam >>> was abrogated. However we prayed ‘Namaaz’ at the residence of the council >>> in a manner similar to the other Muslims. And we always did this in front >>> of others (non-Muslims) as well’ >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani and his fellow missionaries went to the extent >>> of contravening the Bahai principle just to convert a few Muslims. They >>> performed an unlawful act (as per their Faith) only to get close to the >>> Muslims. Why did they resort to such deceitful ways to propagate ? Or did >>> they believe that so long as the ends justify the means, then everything >>> is permissible ? >>> >>> This mode of propagation of Bahaism is indeed strange. Never did Prophet >>> Muhammad (PBUH) advice the missionaries to pretend to pray along with the >>> Jews (of his time), although the Jews were Islam’s sworn enemies. He >>> always used words of kindness and compassion with the people and >>> attracted them towards Islam with his excellent morals. Quran says “We >>> have created the Prophet as an excellent examplar for you” To the extent >>> that even the bloodthirsty infidels used to call Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) >>> him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy). Now compare this, with >>> Bahaullah, his character, his morals and the means he has employed to >>> propagate Bahaism. Can anyone ever call him ‘Sadiq’ (Truthful) and >>> ‘Amin’ (Trustworthy)? >>> >>> And to think Bahaism has come to abrogate Islam! Why are the Bahais so >>> insidious in their approach ? If Bahaism is such a ‘beautiful’ religion >>> then why use such means ? Why don’t they attract the people with this so >>> called beauty ? What is the need to resort to such guile ? Never in the >>> history of the Divine religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was such a >>> mode of propagation permitted. On the contrary Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), >>> and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Moses (PBUH), etc. always adopted >>> sincerity in their approach and never cared to simply enhance the >>> strength of their followers. In fact certain prophets had only a handful >>> of followers, inspite of preaching for hundreds of years. Adam (PBUH) had >>> preached for 930 years and managed to gather a negligible number of >>> followers. As it is widely known even Prophet Noah (PBUH) at the time of >>> the deluge had only eighty companions on his ark. Noah (PBUH) had >>> preached for 950 years. Even Prophet Abraham (PBUH) after years of >>> preaching could muster, but a few disciples. Even Prophet Jesus (PBUH) >>> after all his exhortations and appeals had only twelve close disciples. >>> Yet he never adopted deception to counter the Pharisees, who were >>> thirsty for his blood. As a matter of fact a close study of past prophets >>> will tell us that most, if not all, had only a paltry number of >>> followers. However none of the Prophets took recourse to such populist >>> measures even in the face of severe persecution. >>> >>> Incident 6 >>> Besides praying ‘Namaaz’ along with the Muslims, the Bahai missionaries >>> also employed other means such as becoming disciples/followers of >>> renowned Muslim sages. >>> >>> Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani mentions on pg. 27 of the same book “az Yazd be >>> Kaashshaan wa Tehran raft wa dar Tehran bejahat satr wa hifz wa ameed wa >>> iqbaale izhaar iradat bejanaab ustad Ghulam Rezaae Shishe gar mar shud >>> mashur muslim namud” ‘During my journey to Iran, I traveled from Yazd to >>> Kaashaan and from there to Tehran. In Tehran, I visited a prominent >>> Muslim sage/soothsayer, Ghulam Reza Shishah, and entered his fold. By >>> doing this I hoped on one hand, to conceal my identity and on the other, >>> to convert that sage/soothsayer.’ Mirza Haider Ali Isfahani was indeed a >>> very intelligent missionary. He realised that if he was successful in >>> converting a prominent Muslim sage, it would only be matter of time >>> before all the other followers/disciples followed suit. Another example >>> of Bahai guile. This is where the Muslim Ulamas (scholars) have to be >>> careful. Because if even one Aalim (scholar) falls prey to such Bahai >>> cunning, their students/companions are most likely to emulate them. More >>> incidents of a similar nature can be found on pg. 50 >>> >>> Incident 7 >>> Mulla Ali Akbar was among students of Mulla Muhammad Sadiq. He was the >>> leader (Imam-e-Jam’aat) of the mosque in Shiraz. And from the pulpit he >>> used to announce the claim of ‘Mahdi’ of Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi ( >>> Hazrat Aala). This was done with utmost discretion. Indeed what can be of >>> greater danger to the Muslims that Bahaai propoganda is carried from >>> their places of worship. The consummation of this dissumulation is very >>> aptly described by Abbas Affandi in his book “Al Kaukabe Durriyah” (pg. >>> 452) “peyusteh een taaefeh dar har dastgaahraah dashtand wa az kaar har >>> keesi agaah budeh chandaan keh az harm saraae sultaanee har raaz nahaaee >>> betawassit bahaaiyyaan keh dar pardeh een mastur daair medaad amur bedabd >>> baraae ishaan makshuf meegasht” >>> >>> “the result was that the Bahaais had spread their tentacles everywhere. >>> And they were aware of everyone’s activities. To the extent that the >>> discreet affairs of the women in the king’s harem were known to them >>> through the Bahaais who were employed with in the palaces” This then was >>> the extent of espionage among the Bahais at that time. And it is shocking >>> to say the least. >>> >>> And what is even more shocking is that Abdul Bahaa himself is the one >>> admitting it. And he does seem to confess it without any regret or >>> remorse. As if he was proud of the Bahaai network functioning at that >>> time. >>> >>> Dissimulation in the Sayings of Abbas Affandi (Abdul Bahaa) >>> >>> 1) In Bahaism preaching discreetly has been emphasised to the extent that >>> Abdul Bahaa has mentioned in his book ‘Makaatab’ vol. 3, pg. 327 ‘Hiding >>> your faith has been made obligatory upon you’. Also the author of >>> ‘Nuktatul Qaaf’, Mirza Jaani writes on pg. 211 of the same book ‘The >>> father was concealing his faith from the son and the son from his father >>> and the people of his house.’ >>> >>> 2)Abbas Affandi writes in a letter to Shaykh Farjullah Zaki who was sent >>> to Egypt for preaching ‘Bahaullah has made haraam (forbidden) the >>> preaching of Islam in Egypt. It is required that Bahai friends keep low >>> for a while. And even if someone questions about the Faith, they should >>> pretend to be unaware of it.’ This letter was written on October 22, 1921 >>> >>> 3)This decree on preaching in a concealed manner has been expressed >>> further in no uncertain terms by Abdul Bahaa in his “Makaatab” vol. 3 pg. >>> 496 to Shaikh Mohiddeen Kardi, “masaaile hakeemeh ra asaas tazkereh >>> karaar dheed na aqaaed ra” ‘..while trying to incline the thoughts >>> (towards Bahaism), priority must be given to skills, rather than >>> fundamentals (of the Faith).’ >>> >>> What can be more unsettling than a decree like this one issued by none >>> other than the successor of Bahaullah??? Again this fashion of >>> propagation is alien to the divine faiths, where all the past prophets >>> had emphasised strictly on fundamentals of the religion. At no point of >>> time did the prophets ever make any concessions on the principles. They >>> were prepared to sacrifice their lives but unprepared to comprise on the >>> foundation of religion. Again we see that the Bahai philosophy is the >>> exact antithesis of the Sunnah of the earlier prophets. >>> >>> This, then, was the mode employed by the Bahais to spread the Faith. And >>> it is very much in vogue till date in certain countries, like Indonesia. >>> And that is very disturbing. It is a cause for concern for all Muslims. >>> As it is said an hidden enemy is more dangerous than a thousand open >>> enemies. The objective of this article was to make evident this hidden >>> enemy, as it is also said ‘forewarned is forearmed’. >>> >>> In article <35AA54BB.392@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, >>> osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu says... >>> > "When the smoke and dust cleared away after the [first] volley, Bab was >>> > not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the >>> > skies -- The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he >>> > was dragged from the recess where after some search, he was discovered, >>> > and shot." >>> > (From a correspondence F.O. 60/152 [in the Foreign Office] sent by Lt. >>> > Col. Sheil to Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, on July >>> > 22, 1850 as quoted in H.M. Balyuzi's, _THE BAB: THE HERALD OF THE DAY >OF >>> > DAYS_, [George Ronald, Oxford, 1973], p. 202) >>> > >>> > At midday on 9 July 1850, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, known as the Bab ("Gate >>> > [of Faith]") was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz, Iran. Aside >from >>> > its religious significance to Baha'is (who observed the anniversary of >>> > the Martyrdom of the Bab last Thursday), this event has interesting >>> > historical aspects, one of which is that it was actually the second >>> > firing squad charged with His execution that accomplished the deed -- >>> > the Bab having survived the first one. >>> > >>> > A brief account of the Bab's Martyrdom is given in Esselmont's >>> > _BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA_ begins on p. 17 (scroll down or "Find" >>> > martyr twice) at: >>> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/NewEra/2.html >>> > >>> > The account of the event in Shoghi Effendi's _GOD PASSES BY_ can be >read >>> > at (one may begin at the paragraph numbered 4): >>> > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GPB/GPB-5.html#Page_51 >>> > >>> > The account in Nabil-i-Zarandi (aka Nabil-i-Azam)'s _THE DAWNBREAKERS_ >>> > (including photographs of some of the key people and places in the >>> > drama) is at: >>> > https://bounty.bcca.org/~cvoogt/DAWN/chapters/23.html >>> > >>> > Baha'is believe that the Bab, who announced on 23 May 1844 His mission >>> > as the Herald of another Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, was Himself >>> > also a Messenger of God. More information can be read at: >>> > https://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=8200&CL=1 >>> > (or if this doesn't work, go to https://www.bahai.org/ , "enter," and >>> > then search "Bab"). >>> > >>> > Hope this is of interest... >>> > >>> > DZO >>> > >>> > Don Osborn osborndo [at] @pilot.msu.edu >>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > "The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies >>> > the rise and fall of cultures." Frederick Polak >>> > >>> > "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is >>> > as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 6:37 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: [bahai-faith] A Baha'i technique Roger Reini wrote in message <35c18af6.39349660@news.newsguy.com>... >On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:15:16 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> >>Incidentally, has anyone notice anyone asking >>"Neo Luddite" and such others to apologize to me? >>Or the several other Bahais who have attacked me >>with hate mail? >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm >> >>Is there any Bahai full of "love" and "compassion" >>willing to do so? > >I don't know if I'm "full of 'love' and 'compassion'", but I will make >a comment. > >Neo Luddite certainly has strong opinions. But he does have the right >to hold them. And you have the right to refute them. I agree that he >went overboard in providing personal information about you (info that >was stripped from the newsgroup posting) > >Nobody should be sending anybody any sort of hate mail! Such behavior >is not in accord with the teachings of Baha'u'llah. I'm not suggesting in anyway he has no right to his own opinions. Notice, though, that he's a Bahai who's obviously concealing his identity, saying "non-Bahai" things, if you will, or, at least, supposedly, as others would have believed, a "non-Bahai" TONE.... No one criticizes him for that or his failure to follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah on the glory of moderation, etc., in expressing one's view, and so on, though Baha'u'llah Himself said many immoderate things, in writing, about others.... Such behavior is in accord with the actual way many Bahais regularly conduct themselves in "refuting," rather, ignoring, other people's thoughts and views. He, like many Bahais, is apparently frustrated that I and others have views differing from his own zealous opinions and don't care to be censored by the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 7:36 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <35C0FADD.494497FB@usa.net>... >Susan766 wrote: > >> How is this letter relevant to SCI in the first place? >> > >This is soc.culture.iranian, Mr. Rawhani was an Iranian andwas hanged by >the Islamic Republic of Iran for believing >in a religion that was born in Iran and whose Forerunner >and Prophet were Iranians. > >It seems to me that it is relevant to share this news with Iranians >living in almost every country of the world. Fortunately, Bahais have a free and open Usenet to turn to in such an event, though they suppress religious freedom of conscience and belief on their own "official" newsgroup, soc.religion.bahai, making them no better really than the fanatics who have perpetrated such an abomination.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 1998 6:52 AM Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i J Fisher wrote in message ... >Excuse me? I'm not a Bahai and I've just dropped in here >out of interest, but to compare someone being hanged out of >hand with someone being excluded from one newsgroup seems to >me totally out of all proportion. I was speaking in general and broad terms. Strictly, speaking, you're right, and I'd agree. Hanging someone and censorship on soc.religion.bahai are two different things. Generically, the impulse to control the thought and lives of others is the same in my opinion. If you skim through some of the examples from more than twenty different people of censorship on soc.religion.bahai on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm you'll probably be quite surprised at the evidence of the systematic suppression of views by moderators. > >There are heaps of other newsgroups including, as we see, at >least one other Bahai one. There are also lots of other >tightly-moderatetd newsgroups, and I can't see that >soc.religion.bahai is in any way unsual in this. Tightly controlled censorship on one group does not justify it on another.... > >-- >--John Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 1998 7:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i J Fisher wrote in message ... >Excuse me? I'm not a Bahai and I've just dropped in here >out of interest, but to compare someone being hanged out of >hand with someone being excluded from one newsgroup seems to >me totally out of all proportion. It occurs to me too that the entire context might help you understand what I meant: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ72498.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i J Fisher wrote in message ... >Excuse me? I'm not a Bahai and I've just dropped in here >out of interest, but to compare someone being hanged out of >hand with someone being excluded from one newsgroup seems to >me totally out of all proportion. It occurs to me too that the entire context might help you understand what I meant: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ72498.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:07 AM To: Mbacarter@aol.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Wives To Obey Husbands Just that. The "moderators" refuse to post any message from me that might contains my signature file. Their excuse is that I have a link to the Yahoo! Bahai page, a major search engine, which also has then a link or two pointing to a covenant breakers site. Notice I have no such link on MY web site nor never had any intention of linking to a cb site. Other people have pointed out that there are regularly many other ways of linking and linking off srb and ending up at a cb site. I can only conclude that the real motive of the "moderators" is to suppress all knowledge of my web site that provides documentary evidence of their widespread censoring of more than 20 people and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai at the end of this month. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Mbacarter@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i Wives To Obey Husbands >In a message dated 8/1/98 8:47:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >FG@hotmail.com writes: > >> >> I'd respond to you online but srb moderators have instituted a ban >> on all messages that contain my signature file below. >> > >What do you mean? > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:09 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Deana Marie Holmes Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! Deana Marie Holmes wrote in message <35c5ae2f.88472532@enews.newsguy.com>... >On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:28 GMT, rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) >wrote: > >>Once again, what I have to say applies to everyone. It's not directed >>at any specific individual. The title of my post says it best: >>ENOUGH ALREADY! >> >>Nearly two months ago, I flew out to Los Angeles and Orange County for >>a long weekend vacation. I left my laptop at home, so I was without >>access to e-mail and Usenet. I had a wonderful time out there, as did >>my friends. >> >>When I came home and caught up on a.r.b, I was dismayed by the >>contents of several of the messages. Shortly afterwards, I went to >>Europe for several weeks. Once again, I stopped following Usenet. >>When I came home, I was stunned at the number of messages that had >>been posted, so I didn't bother reading most of them. >> >>Now, in these last few days, I find myself reeling at what's contained >>in some of these messages: insinuations that divine institutions were >>behind the murder of a believer; breaches of netiquette; the smearing >>of reputations; and so on. >> >>IMHO, this can do nothing except breed dissension and disunity. It's >>giving aid and comfort to those who would break or have broken the >>Covenant. Indeed, I can picture Mirza Muhammad Ali, the Center of >>Sedition, taking a momentary pleasure in this. But only a momentary >>pleasure, for the Cause of God will triumph over all obstacles. >> >>Let's try and remember how we should be conducting ourselves. We >>should write our messages as though we were writing to 'Abdu'l-Baha. >>Remember, He is lurking on a.r.b (so to speak). We should not be >>engaging in character assassination, in defamation, calumny or >>anything. >> >>And one more thing: the tenor of these discussions does not bode well >>for the creation of talk.religion.bahai. > >What is this, a threat? > >I admit to being very distressed by what appears to be the Baha'i >Faith acting like my nemesis the "Church" of $cientology in >attempting to suppress discussion. I have a lot more respect for >Bahai's but this is rather unnerving. > >May I remind you that Usenet is not a place to put forward your >doctrine or dogma in an unchallenged vacuum. The $cientologists have >learned that, much to their dismay. > > >Deana Marie Holmes >The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list) >$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today? >mirele@xmission.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:10 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: : Lloyd Madansky Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i -----Original Message----- From: Lloyd Madansky Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 2:20 PM Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i >Shalom Frederick; > > >> Fortunately, Bahais have a free and open Usenet to turn to >> in such an event, though they suppress religious freedom of >> conscience and belief on their own "official" newsgroup, >> soc.religion.bahai, making them no better really than the >> fanatics who have perpetrated such an abomination.... > >In respect to the above, I must disagree. First off, while there is a >"moderated" newsgroup "soc.religion.bahai", there is also this newsgroup, >which, as even a quick glance can see is wide open in regard to what is >posted. Dispite beliefs or feelings to the contrary, freedom of speech, and >the controling thereof is protected by the Constitution in relationship to >government control. It is my understanding that the various outlets on the >internet, newsgroups included, are moderated or not by design of the >originator (be they individual or group). The moderated ones have, IMHO, the >right to control such postings as to content. It should also be noted that >even talk radio and TV, along with magazines and newspapers have the right to >control, edit and decide what is to be printed and what is not. You may not >like this, but, that is the way it is. > >To then state that the moderators of a moderated newsgroup, in doing their >job of moderating said newsgroup, are "no better really than the fanatics who >have perpetrated such an abomination...." >is, at best, a real stretch. You are, of course, free to believe anything >you wish, but, then I am just as free to disagree. > >-- >SHALOM, Lloyd > >" O SON OF SPIRIT! > My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that >thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. > >-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:31 AM To: Ron House Cc: Fran Baker Subject: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i Ron, I appreciate your recent messages and candid views. I don't believe I should respond to this message. I've commented enough on this kind of thing lately. I've forwarded it to makelist.com and wonder if you would respond to it if you feel like it? I'm hoping to stay more on the technical side of the 3rd poll, if Bahais will let me, and perhaps others can take care of responding to these kind of messages. I've said repeatedly I'd be willing to take a back seat this time around but to no avail. Bahais probably see me as to their advantage in defeating the proposal. I believe, though, your comments and those of Fran Baker's (see the end of the FAQ) are right on target and Bahais need to be called to account for their lack of discussion about censorship and other concerns in an objective and consistent manner. I'm asking for your help, and Fran's. Would the two of you be willing to be co-proponents? I'm not sure Chris Manvell can be trusted. He really stopped being involved late last fall when it appeared the poll was going in favor of the proposal and he could have been influential in getting it passed. Lately, now, he's beginning to show up occasionally again. I'm worried he basically worked as a mole, if you will, and is now back to assume the same role. He, Roger Reini, and Donald Osborn, despite their various claims of support, may actually be coming from the same place.... While it might be necessary to have a few such Bahais on board for the RFD, I don't trust them. Paul K. Johnson, an x-Bahai, I hope, might lend his name and an occasional hand if asked.... I really believe the news groupies on news.groups are much more in support this time from advice and help they've given me during the last month. That's encouraging, though I'm not naive. It will be another battle though a different one from the last two. My web site and makelist.com should help in a number of ways. News groupies have advised me to use it to shunt off most non- technical questions, i.e., anything relating to censorship and the Bahai faith/history/theology and so on.... If nothng else, and you don't want to get too involved, if you both could serve as proponents and just once in a while let your voices be heard when you genuinely feel so moved, it would help a lot.... The time frame at this point, though I don't want to announce it yet and tip Bahais off, is probably to begin discussing on arb the RFD in a few weeks, dust it off, and post it to news.announce.newgroups by early to mid September when the timing is right. It will then take at least three weeks on news.groups before voting can begin. News groupies recommend timing the vote so that students at institutions that begin early October can participate, such as at Stanford.... Let me know your thoughts and suggestions. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Lloyd Madansky Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 2:20 PM Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i >Shalom Frederick; > > >> Fortunately, Bahais have a free and open Usenet to turn to >> in such an event, though they suppress religious freedom of >> conscience and belief on their own "official" newsgroup, >> soc.religion.bahai, making them no better really than the >> fanatics who have perpetrated such an abomination.... > >In respect to the above, I must disagree. First off, while there is a >"moderated" newsgroup "soc.religion.bahai", there is also this newsgroup, >which, as even a quick glance can see is wide open in regard to what is >posted. Dispite beliefs or feelings to the contrary, freedom of speech, and >the controling thereof is protected by the Constitution in relationship to >government control. It is my understanding that the various outlets on the >internet, newsgroups included, are moderated or not by design of the >originator (be they individual or group). The moderated ones have, IMHO, the >right to control such postings as to content. It should also be noted that >even talk radio and TV, along with magazines and newspapers have the right to >control, edit and decide what is to be printed and what is not. You may not >like this, but, that is the way it is. > >To then state that the moderators of a moderated newsgroup, in doing their >job of moderating said newsgroup, are "no better really than the fanatics who >have perpetrated such an abomination...." >is, at best, a real stretch. You are, of course, free to believe anything >you wish, but, then I am just as free to disagree. > >-- >SHALOM, Lloyd > >" O SON OF SPIRIT! > My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that >thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. > >-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:42 AM To: mirele@newsguy.com Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! Thanks a lot for stating your opinions on alt.religion.bahai. I probably shouldn't respond to you there.... My voice is heard too often as it is.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Deana Marie Holmes Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 8:12 PM Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! >On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:28 GMT, rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) >wrote: > >>Once again, what I have to say applies to everyone. It's not directed >>at any specific individual. The title of my post says it best: >>ENOUGH ALREADY! >> >>Nearly two months ago, I flew out to Los Angeles and Orange County for >>a long weekend vacation. I left my laptop at home, so I was without >>access to e-mail and Usenet. I had a wonderful time out there, as did >>my friends. >> >>When I came home and caught up on a.r.b, I was dismayed by the >>contents of several of the messages. Shortly afterwards, I went to >>Europe for several weeks. Once again, I stopped following Usenet. >>When I came home, I was stunned at the number of messages that had >>been posted, so I didn't bother reading most of them. >> >>Now, in these last few days, I find myself reeling at what's contained >>in some of these messages: insinuations that divine institutions were >>behind the murder of a believer; breaches of netiquette; the smearing >>of reputations; and so on. >> >>IMHO, this can do nothing except breed dissension and disunity. It's >>giving aid and comfort to those who would break or have broken the >>Covenant. Indeed, I can picture Mirza Muhammad Ali, the Center of >>Sedition, taking a momentary pleasure in this. But only a momentary >>pleasure, for the Cause of God will triumph over all obstacles. >> >>Let's try and remember how we should be conducting ourselves. We >>should write our messages as though we were writing to 'Abdu'l-Baha. >>Remember, He is lurking on a.r.b (so to speak). We should not be >>engaging in character assassination, in defamation, calumny or >>anything. >> >>And one more thing: the tenor of these discussions does not bode well >>for the creation of talk.religion.bahai. > >What is this, a threat? > >I admit to being very distressed by what appears to be the Baha'i >Faith acting like my nemesis the "Church" of $cientology in >attempting to suppress discussion. I have a lot more respect for >Bahai's but this is rather unnerving. > >May I remind you that Usenet is not a place to put forward your >doctrine or dogma in an unchallenged vacuum. The $cientologists have >learned that, much to their dismay. > > >Deana Marie Holmes >The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list) >$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today? >mirele@xmission.com ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 1998 11:10 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: TRB proposal Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I appreciate your recent messages and candid views. Thanks Fred, I hope I didn't come on too strong. > I'm hoping to stay more on the technical side of the > 3rd poll, if Bahais will let me, and perhaps others can > take care of responding to these kind of messages. > I've said repeatedly I'd be willing to take a back seat > this time around but to no avail. Bahais probably see > me as to their advantage in defeating the proposal. > I believe, though, your comments and those of > Fran Baker's (see the end of the FAQ) are right on > target and Bahais need to be called to account for > their lack of discussion about censorship and other > concerns in an objective and consistent manner. Yes. I think this is a good idea. I suspect I have a temperament quite similar to yours, but I have learned through hard experience that it isn't productive to give too much leeway to it. Even if you think someone definitely is dishonest, continuing to respond as if they are not will keep people on side and give the dishonest one more rope to hang themself with eventually. I hope this doesn't sound as if I am sermonising. > I'm asking for your help, and Fran's. Would the two > of you be willing to be co-proponents? Sure. I'll be glad to. > I'm not sure > Chris Manvell can be trusted. He really stopped being > involved late last fall when it appeared the poll was > going in favor of the proposal and he could have been > influential in getting it passed. Lately, now, he's beginning > to show up occasionally again. I'm worried he basically > worked as a mole, if you will, and is now back to assume > the same role. Don't let it bother you. If he wants to get involved, let him. I plan to ask widely for votes this time in any case. > I really believe the news groupies on news.groups are > much more in support this time from advice and help > they've given me during the last month. That's encouraging, > though I'm not naive. That's good. > The time frame at this point, though I don't want to > announce it yet and tip Bahais off, is probably to begin > discussing on arb the RFD in a few weeks, dust it off, > and post it to news.announce.newgroups by early to > mid September when the timing is right. It will then take > at least three weeks on news.groups before voting can > begin. News groupies recommend timing the vote so > that students at institutions that begin early October can > participate, such as at Stanford.... Sounds a good plan. Let's see what happens. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 7:46 AM To: ETHNOMTRX@aol.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Wives To Obey Husbands The easiest answer would be for you to look at the web site and alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.misc Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: ETHNOMTRX@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 9:20 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i Wives To Obey Husbands >In a message dated 98-08-01 08:44:41 EDT, you write: > ><< Then are you aware that this newsgroup is heavily censored? >> > >I have encountered that. Why in the world is that the case? I had a post >rejected, that I thought was quite valid, cuz the censor said it might offend >muslims. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 7:55 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i On the first try, one of our servers or something must have been done.... Got the other message from you though this morning. Fred -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Ron House Cc: Fran Baker Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:31 AM Subject: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i >Ron, > >I appreciate your recent messages and candid views. > >I don't believe I should respond to this message. I've >commented enough on this kind of thing lately. I've >forwarded it to makelist.com and wonder if you would >respond to it if you feel like it? > >I'm hoping to stay more on the technical side of the >3rd poll, if Bahais will let me, and perhaps others can >take care of responding to these kind of messages. >I've said repeatedly I'd be willing to take a back seat >this time around but to no avail. Bahais probably see >me as to their advantage in defeating the proposal. >I believe, though, your comments and those of >Fran Baker's (see the end of the FAQ) are right on >target and Bahais need to be called to account for >their lack of discussion about censorship and other >concerns in an objective and consistent manner. > >I'm asking for your help, and Fran's. Would the two >of you be willing to be co-proponents? I'm not sure >Chris Manvell can be trusted. He really stopped being >involved late last fall when it appeared the poll was >going in favor of the proposal and he could have been >influential in getting it passed. Lately, now, he's beginning >to show up occasionally again. I'm worried he basically >worked as a mole, if you will, and is now back to assume >the same role. He, Roger Reini, and Donald Osborn, >despite their various claims of support, may actually be >coming from the same place.... While it might be necessary >to have a few such Bahais on board for the RFD, I don't >trust them. Paul K. Johnson, an x-Bahai, I hope, might >lend his name and an occasional hand if asked.... > >I really believe the news groupies on news.groups are >much more in support this time from advice and help >they've given me during the last month. That's encouraging, >though I'm not naive. It will be another battle though a >different one from the last two. My web site and >makelist.com should help in a number of ways. News >groupies have advised me to use it to shunt off most non- >technical questions, i.e., anything relating to censorship >and the Bahai faith/history/theology and so on.... > >If nothng else, and you don't want to get too involved, if >you both could serve as proponents and just once in a >while let your voices be heard when you genuinely feel >so moved, it would help a lot.... > >The time frame at this point, though I don't want to >announce it yet and tip Bahais off, is probably to begin >discussing on arb the RFD in a few weeks, dust it off, >and post it to news.announce.newgroups by early to >mid September when the timing is right. It will then take >at least three weeks on news.groups before voting can >begin. News groupies recommend timing the vote so >that students at institutions that begin early October can >participate, such as at Stanford.... > >Let me know your thoughts and suggestions. > >Fred > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lloyd Madansky >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 2:20 PM >Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i > > >>Shalom Frederick; >> >> >>> Fortunately, Bahais have a free and open Usenet to turn to >>> in such an event, though they suppress religious freedom of >>> conscience and belief on their own "official" newsgroup, >>> soc.religion.bahai, making them no better really than the >>> fanatics who have perpetrated such an abomination.... >> >>In respect to the above, I must disagree. First off, while there is a >>"moderated" newsgroup "soc.religion.bahai", there is also this newsgroup, >>which, as even a quick glance can see is wide open in regard to what is >>posted. Dispite beliefs or feelings to the contrary, freedom of speech, >and >>the controling thereof is protected by the Constitution in relationship to >>government control. It is my understanding that the various outlets on the >>internet, newsgroups included, are moderated or not by design of the >>originator (be they individual or group). The moderated ones have, IMHO, >the >>right to control such postings as to content. It should also be noted that >>even talk radio and TV, along with magazines and newspapers have the right >to >>control, edit and decide what is to be printed and what is not. You may >not >>like this, but, that is the way it is. >> >>To then state that the moderators of a moderated newsgroup, in doing their >>job of moderating said newsgroup, are "no better really than the fanatics >who >>have perpetrated such an abomination...." >>is, at best, a real stretch. You are, of course, free to believe anything >>you wish, but, then I am just as free to disagree. >> >>-- >>SHALOM, Lloyd >> >>" O SON OF SPIRIT! >> My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that >>thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. >> >>-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 8:43 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: "Local man helps many leave Scientology" Bahais might find it enlightening to compare the experience of some people with scientology with soc.religion.bahai and so on.... It occurs to me that perhaps members or former members of scientology might find my web site and the present discussion on alt.religion.bahai interesting.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Bob Minton wrote in message <35cf2653.41963471@news.tiac.net>... >From: The Rockingham News, July 31, 1998. > >Local man helps many leave Scientology >Church says he distorts truth, >by Lara Bricker, Staff Writer > >Sandown - Just who is 51 year-old Robert Minton, and why has he spent >almost $2 million dollars helping people he feels have been victimized >by the Church of Scientology? > If you ask him, the Boston resident who owns a summer home on >Fremont road in Sandown will tell you it's because he doesn't believe >in Xenu, an evil galactic overlord who controlled nine planets in >this section of the galaxy 75 million years ago and then decided to do >a little population control by wiping out 7 billion people. > It is something Minton contends Scientologists are taught. And it's >an expensive lesson, he says, costing as much as $360,000 to get to >the top levels of the church. > According to Minton, Scientologists are taught that Xenu injected >all the "bad" people with glycerol and alcohol, froze them and then >sent them in rocket ships to Teegeak (the Scientologists' name for >Earth) where they were deposited in volcanoes on the Canary Islands >and Hawaii. > Minton feels the methods used by the church brainwash people and, >after extended exposure to these techniques, the critical thinking >capabilities of their brains are shut down. > "By the time they learn about Xenu, it wouldn't matter if the story >was a thousand times more bizarre." Minton says. "You're not able to >think, to make critical decisions. It's really chilling what these >people do." > After learning of what he calls an illegal attempt by the church to >remove a Web site containing information taken allegedly from their >sacred scriptures, he began to study the church. > "What could be said about somebody that's so bad that they try to >stop free speech," Minton said was his initial thought. > Kevin Hall, human rights officer for the church's Boston location, >said the reason the church was upset about the information on the Web >site was it had been altered and was untrue. > After the untimely death of church member Lisa McPherson in 1996, >Minton said he became more concerned about what was going on in the >church. He said McPherson was locked up for 17 days in a Scientology >headquarters in Clearwater, Fla., when she was in need of medical aid. > > "I thought this was pretty appalling," Minton says. "We got >together and said we're not going to let this get swept under the >carpet." > > Minton felt moved to pay the attorney fees in a wrongful death suit >McPherson's parents filed against the church. Since then, he has >assisted others he feels have been victims of the church. > He bought a house for Stacy Young and her husband who ran a shelter >for cats, which was shut down, Minton said they feel, as retribution >for their leaving the church. > > Minton is currently preparing to assist another church deserter who, >Minton said, plans to come forward with information about what goes on >within the confines of Scientology. One of those former church >members who doesn't want his identity or whereabouts revealed, has >information that apparently upset the church, Minton said. > > When contacted by phone, the former church member described Minton >as an angel come to help him. > > Hall said Wednesday, Scientologists question the methods used by >psychiatrists, especially the involuntarily commitment of individuals >to institutions. > "When they do it involuntarily, it's pretty un-American and >un-constitutional," Hall said. "Drugging is merely masking problems >and leads to addiction. Mental instability is usually something >physical." Hall added, "that's what we're fighting." > > A retired investment banker, Minton has returned to Sandown for the >past eight summers and, until last weekend, church protesters have not >targeted his rural home, although they have picketed his Boston >residence. > > The Church of Scientology is skeptical of Minton's motives, and a >spokesperson said he wants to know why the Sandown summer resident is >on a crusade to reform the church and why he is "spreading lies." >"He's trying to destroy the church," said Hall. > > Minton says the mind-control techniques the church uses could >account for why people haven't come forward until now. He says the >church instill fear in members. > > "you can become outside your body, can control matter, energy and >space," he said church members are told. "If I don't like you, I can >with my eyes kill you." > > Hall says Minton fails to recognize the good work the church has >done. > "When he spreads things, he certainly doesn't talk about literacy >programs, criminal rehabilitation programs in inner cities around the >country," Hall says. "He's not a nice guy." > Although the estimated number of Scientologists in New Hampshire >doesn't even make a dent in the estimated 8 million members worldwide, >Hall says they are around. He says there is a small mission in >Concord and estimates about 500 members live in New Hampshire. Due to >the size of the New Hampshire mission, Scientologists have had to >leave the state to reach the highest levels of the church, he said. > > Two of the protesters who picketed outside Minton's Sandown home >last weekend live in Newfields. > > Part of the allure of Scientology, Minton said, is the fact that >several well-known actors who have joined the church: Tom Cruise, John >Travolta and Lisa Marie Presley, to name a few. He said the celebrity >names make people think if people like that are involved it must be >legitimate. > > Hall says the philosophy of the church centers on helping people and >improving their ability to deal with and live their lives. As for the >skeptics, he says, they should not listen to Minton's claims. > "The church has a long track record of improving life. Millions of >people attest to it," Hall said. "What people should do is look at >the material on Scientology and think for yourself; learn to >understand life, think for yourself." > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 9:10 AM Subject: Re: a.r.s. Short FAQ for Newcomers version 0.11 David Gerard wrote in message <35cc465f.6391888@202.12.87.97>... >I'm still waiting for anything in this thread that will inspire me to >change or update the Short FAQ. Please? I would find a FAQ on alt.religion.scientology helpful. I've followed what appears of this thread on my server hoping to find one to no avail. It seems to me there are some interesting similarities between some of the discussion here on ars and on alt.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 9:16 AM Subject: fw Ron House Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai fyi -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 2:22 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai >Here is an example of idiotic censorship by the >moderators at soc.religion.bahai. I've pointed >out to him that my post fits the charter of SRB. >Waiting to hear what he says for himself. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >--------------------------------------------------- > >Subject: Re: Times When Husband should defer to Wife, > Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 18:36:41 -1000 > From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" > To: Ron House > CC: srb-mods@bcca.org > > >Ron: >This was a perfect start to a flame war so I did not post it. >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai > >---------- >From: Ron House >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Subject: Re: Times When Husband should defer to Wife, >Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:47:15 +1000 > >Suzanne Gerstner wrote: > >> First I'd like to say something though. Personally, the subject line: >> "Baha'i Wives to Obey Husbands" bothers me tremendously because it's >> very misleading, so to balance it, I've changed it to say roughly the >> opposite. :-) Taken out of context the first sounds very "old world >> order". It gives the wrong impression about the principles of the >> Baha'i Faith. There are people who know nothing of the Baha'i teachings >> on the family, consultation or the equality of the sexes who could draw >> a wrong conclusion from this subject line without ever really >> investigating further. > >But you don't mind the wrong conclusion that the >Baha'i Faith advocates wives ruling husbands? Did >you know that Baha'u'llah said that prejudice of >_all_ kinds should be forgotten? Not merely the >prejudices of previous ages, but the anti-male >prejudices of modern hate feminism too. > >A new world order isn't simply the opposite of the >old world order. And you'll notice that I have taken >your comments seriously. I am not amused by the fact >that you put a smiley on your work; treating the >problem as simply reversing the direction of the >prejudice is both tragically wrong and very >effective, much like yelling 'fire' in a crowded >theatre and trying to excuse the resulting mayhem >by calling it a joke. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:30 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House fran fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i Dear Fred, I am happy to help you. Since I don't know as much as I should about Internet technicalities and policies and am not, never have been, and never will be a Baha'i, I hesitated. But my husband, Frank, has strengths in these areas, including great Baha'i credentials, and shares our appreciation for free discussion. He suggested that we help together, if that is OK with you. We would need to set up a joint, non-work account (i.e., Prairienet), which is feasible. Let us know if you think this will work. --Fran Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I appreciate your recent messages and candid views. > > I don't believe I should respond to this message. I've > commented enough on this kind of thing lately. I've > forwarded it to makelist.com and wonder if you would > respond to it if you feel like it? > > I'm hoping to stay more on the technical side of the > 3rd poll, if Bahais will let me, and perhaps others can > take care of responding to these kind of messages. > I've said repeatedly I'd be willing to take a back seat > this time around but to no avail. Bahais probably see > me as to their advantage in defeating the proposal. > I believe, though, your comments and those of > Fran Baker's (see the end of the FAQ) are right on > target and Bahais need to be called to account for > their lack of discussion about censorship and other > concerns in an objective and consistent manner. > > I'm asking for your help, and Fran's. Would the two > of you be willing to be co-proponents? I'm not sure > Chris Manvell can be trusted. He really stopped being > involved late last fall when it appeared the poll was > going in favor of the proposal and he could have been > influential in getting it passed. Lately, now, he's beginning > to show up occasionally again. I'm worried he basically > worked as a mole, if you will, and is now back to assume > the same role. He, Roger Reini, and Donald Osborn, > despite their various claims of support, may actually be > coming from the same place.... While it might be necessary > to have a few such Bahais on board for the RFD, I don't > trust them. Paul K. Johnson, an x-Bahai, I hope, might > lend his name and an occasional hand if asked.... > > I really believe the news groupies on news.groups are > much more in support this time from advice and help > they've given me during the last month. That's encouraging, > though I'm not naive. It will be another battle though a > different one from the last two. My web site and > makelist.com should help in a number of ways. News > groupies have advised me to use it to shunt off most non- > technical questions, i.e., anything relating to censorship > and the Bahai faith/history/theology and so on.... > > If nothng else, and you don't want to get too involved, if > you both could serve as proponents and just once in a > while let your voices be heard when you genuinely feel > so moved, it would help a lot.... > > The time frame at this point, though I don't want to > announce it yet and tip Bahais off, is probably to begin > discussing on arb the RFD in a few weeks, dust it off, > and post it to news.announce.newgroups by early to > mid September when the timing is right. It will then take > at least three weeks on news.groups before voting can > begin. News groupies recommend timing the vote so > that students at institutions that begin early October can > participate, such as at Stanford.... > > Let me know your thoughts and suggestions. > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lloyd Madansky > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc > Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 2:20 PM > Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i > > >Shalom Frederick; > > > > > >> Fortunately, Bahais have a free and open Usenet to turn to > >> in such an event, though they suppress religious freedom of > >> conscience and belief on their own "official" newsgroup, > >> soc.religion.bahai, making them no better really than the > >> fanatics who have perpetrated such an abomination.... > > > >In respect to the above, I must disagree. First off, while there is a > >"moderated" newsgroup "soc.religion.bahai", there is also this newsgroup, > >which, as even a quick glance can see is wide open in regard to what is > >posted. Dispite beliefs or feelings to the contrary, freedom of speech, > and > >the controling thereof is protected by the Constitution in relationship to > >government control. It is my understanding that the various outlets on the > >internet, newsgroups included, are moderated or not by design of the > >originator (be they individual or group). The moderated ones have, IMHO, > the > >right to control such postings as to content. It should also be noted that > >even talk radio and TV, along with magazines and newspapers have the right > to > >control, edit and decide what is to be printed and what is not. You may > not > >like this, but, that is the way it is. > > > >To then state that the moderators of a moderated newsgroup, in doing their > >job of moderating said newsgroup, are "no better really than the fanatics > who > >have perpetrated such an abomination...." > >is, at best, a real stretch. You are, of course, free to believe anything > >you wish, but, then I am just as free to disagree. > > > >-- > >SHALOM, Lloyd > > > >" O SON OF SPIRIT! > > My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that > >thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. > > > >-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 4:03 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i Hi Fred, No need for anonymity. The private account would make things easier in many ways for us (both our names on it, ability to post more easily, we hope, etc.) Consider us as co-proponents if you think we would have the necessary credibility or whatever is needed. ==Fran and Frank Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Sure. It would be great to have a few more voices! Mine is too > often the only one.... Ron House has agreed to be a co-proponent > again. Your self, and/or your husband, would be quite helpful. I've > been through all the technical side it twice now and know a number > of news groupies, as they say, who can advise as needed on the > technical end of things. I'm not clear on whether you want to > participate on an anonymous basis or just use a private account > so as not to disturb things at work. It would be best if you could > be forthright about who you are. I don't believe anonymous > people can serve as proponents, and then attacks often come > from people concealing their identities.... Whatever you want.... > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fran Baker > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: Ron House fran fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu > Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:27 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i > > >Dear Fred, > > > >I am happy to help you. Since I don't know as much as I should about > >Internet technicalities and policies and am not, never have been, and > >never will be a Baha'i, I hesitated. But my husband, Frank, has > >strengths in these areas, including great Baha'i credentials, and shares > >our appreciation for free discussion. He suggested that we help > >together, if that is OK with you. We would need to set up a joint, > >non-work account (i.e., Prairienet), which is feasible. Let us know if > >you think this will work. > > > >--Fran > > > > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> > >> Ron, > >> > >> I appreciate your recent messages and candid views. > >> > >> I don't believe I should respond to this message. I've > >> commented enough on this kind of thing lately. I've > >> forwarded it to makelist.com and wonder if you would > >> respond to it if you feel like it? > >> > >> I'm hoping to stay more on the technical side of the > >> 3rd poll, if Bahais will let me, and perhaps others can > >> take care of responding to these kind of messages. > >> I've said repeatedly I'd be willing to take a back seat > >> this time around but to no avail. Bahais probably see > >> me as to their advantage in defeating the proposal. > >> I believe, though, your comments and those of > >> Fran Baker's (see the end of the FAQ) are right on > >> target and Bahais need to be called to account for > >> their lack of discussion about censorship and other > >> concerns in an objective and consistent manner. > >> > >> I'm asking for your help, and Fran's. Would the two > >> of you be willing to be co-proponents? I'm not sure > >> Chris Manvell can be trusted. He really stopped being > >> involved late last fall when it appeared the poll was > >> going in favor of the proposal and he could have been > >> influential in getting it passed. Lately, now, he's beginning > >> to show up occasionally again. I'm worried he basically > >> worked as a mole, if you will, and is now back to assume > >> the same role. He, Roger Reini, and Donald Osborn, > >> despite their various claims of support, may actually be > >> coming from the same place.... While it might be necessary > >> to have a few such Bahais on board for the RFD, I don't > >> trust them. Paul K. Johnson, an x-Bahai, I hope, might > >> lend his name and an occasional hand if asked.... > >> > >> I really believe the news groupies on news.groups are > >> much more in support this time from advice and help > >> they've given me during the last month. That's encouraging, > >> though I'm not naive. It will be another battle though a > >> different one from the last two. My web site and > >> makelist.com should help in a number of ways. News > >> groupies have advised me to use it to shunt off most non- > >> technical questions, i.e., anything relating to censorship > >> and the Bahai faith/history/theology and so on.... > >> > >> If nothng else, and you don't want to get too involved, if > >> you both could serve as proponents and just once in a > >> while let your voices be heard when you genuinely feel > >> so moved, it would help a lot.... > >> > >> The time frame at this point, though I don't want to > >> announce it yet and tip Bahais off, is probably to begin > >> discussing on arb the RFD in a few weeks, dust it off, > >> and post it to news.announce.newgroups by early to > >> mid September when the timing is right. It will then take > >> at least three weeks on news.groups before voting can > >> begin. News groupies recommend timing the vote so > >> that students at institutions that begin early October can > >> participate, such as at Stanford.... > >> > >> Let me know your thoughts and suggestions. > >> > >> Fred > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lloyd Madansky > >> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc > >> Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 2:20 PM > >> Subject: Re: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i > >> > >> >Shalom Frederick; > >> > > >> > > >> >> Fortunately, Bahais have a free and open Usenet to turn to > >> >> in such an event, though they suppress religious freedom of > >> >> conscience and belief on their own "official" newsgroup, > >> >> soc.religion.bahai, making them no better really than the > >> >> fanatics who have perpetrated such an abomination.... > >> > > >> >In respect to the above, I must disagree. First off, while there is a > >> >"moderated" newsgroup "soc.religion.bahai", there is also this > newsgroup, > >> >which, as even a quick glance can see is wide open in regard to what is > >> >posted. Dispite beliefs or feelings to the contrary, freedom of speech, > >> and > >> >the controling thereof is protected by the Constitution in relationship > to > >> >government control. It is my understanding that the various outlets on > the > >> >internet, newsgroups included, are moderated or not by design of the > >> >originator (be they individual or group). The moderated ones have, > IMHO, > >> the > >> >right to control such postings as to content. It should also be noted > that > >> >even talk radio and TV, along with magazines and newspapers have the > right > >> to > >> >control, edit and decide what is to be printed and what is not. You may > >> not > >> >like this, but, that is the way it is. > >> > > >> >To then state that the moderators of a moderated newsgroup, in doing > their > >> >job of moderating said newsgroup, are "no better really than the > fanatics > >> who > >> >have perpetrated such an abomination...." > >> >is, at best, a real stretch. You are, of course, free to believe > anything > >> >you wish, but, then I am just as free to disagree. > >> > > >> >-- > >> >SHALOM, Lloyd > >> > > >> >" O SON OF SPIRIT! > >> > My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, > that > >> >thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. > >> > > >> >-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah > >> > > >> > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 6:19 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: Fw: Details Regarding Hanging of a Baha'i Welcome aboard! And thanks.... I appreciate your willingness to take the heat, if the past is any indication of what to expect.... With the two of you, that makes four proponents, along with myself and Ron House who's recently agreed again. I'm hoping one of the "orthodox" voices will step forward or be drafted. Would you mind terribly if I wait a week or two until one of them agrees just to be sure we don't scare them off? I'll announce Ron House first as a proponent. That won't worry them. Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 6:36 AM Subject: Re: A Bahai technique Bill Brewer wrote in message <35C5E49E.842DC84F@compusmart.ab.ca>... >When we look at the conduct of some contributors to unmoderated newsgroups, >we need no further demonstration of the need for a balance between liberty >and order. Where there is no impartial arbitrator to hold that balance, the >participants must regulate themselves I note you fail to address the issues of my original post.... Let me suggest that people will take you and other Bahais defending srb censorship more seriously should you ever actually begin listening to those who have been stripped of their liberty and freedom by the "moderators." Please begin on the srb page on my web site and discuss in detail why you think each of the more than twenty people there deserved to have their contributions suppressed.... In terms of alt.religion.bahai, if you're actually interested in doing something constructive, I suggest again that you work with perhaps Roger Reini, who's made a valiant effort by posting to alt.religion to implement Guy Macon's advice on handling annoying crossposters. I should probably add his message to my web site to keep it current and easily available. I had posted it here a week or two ago and it should be easy enough to find it on www. dejanews.com Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 6:54 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! rlittle wrote: When an individual, or group of >individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity becomes >increasingly difficult, if not impossible. It appears to me that you spewed hatred and prejudice when this spring you repeatedly pushed me against the wall and demanded I post Bud Polk's hate mail and then once you achieved that objective back-tracked and refuse to comment on it since it didn't serve your purposes as you had imagined it would. It also appears to me that you and other Bahais who support censorship on soc.religion.bahai backbite all the time, me and others on alt.religion.bahai, and do have any qualms about it: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate4.htm See also the message below in which Dr. Juan Cole mentions he believes a Bahai administrator backbit him on more than one occasion. There are at least two or three other references thoroughout the messages on my Juan Cole page in which he mentions having been backbiting by a Hand of the Cause even I believe.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole4.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6q4ttd$jqb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Friends: > >Deana's response to "ENOUGH ALREADY" deserves a more detailed reply, in my >opinion. > >I agree with Deana - and I an certain Roger does also - that the active >suppression of the flow of information with the purpose of controlling both >the information and the intended recipients of it - people - is >reprehensible, and is the hallmark of a dictatorial, repressive mindset. > >What I believe that Roger Reini is feeling and saying is that from the Baha'i >perspective, unity is not a goal, it is the goal, and the vehicle for >attaining that goal is love, in all its many forms: courtesy, respect, >honesty, truthfulness, and so on. When an individual, or group of >individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity becomes >increasingly difficult, if not impossible. > >They create division where none exists. > >The free flow of information is imperative, is vital to the creation of a >world- embracing society where the diversity of peoples, rather than a >hindrance, becomes the means to a unified, organic whole. HOWEVER, there are >laws which govern human society. I do not refer to man made laws, but rather >the laws which actually, literally govern human society. > >Society is a composed organism, and the unifying force holding it together is >love. Destroy that binding force of love and you destroy the society. Anything >which creates or helps create greater love in a society is good, and anything >which destroys it is bad. > >The posts which Roger was referring to consisted of attacks on the character >and motives of named individuals, of the Institutions which Baha'u'llah >Himself ordained, and of the Baha'i Faith itself. > >The Baha'i Faith has developed a process for resolving conflicts and finding >solutions which works quite well. It does require a great deal of individual >responsibility and maturity to work. When a problem arises, the community >analyzes the situation to determine exactly what the problem is, then ideas >and suggestions are offered. Once a suggestion is put out, the individual who >offered it no longer owns it, it belongs to the group. Out of this process >the group develops the best available solution. All members of the group >adopt wholeheartedly the solution, acting and thinking as if the solution >were their own individual idea. The fact that the entire community is unified >will reveal any flaws or problems quickly, and the community can then correct >and improve. This process does not allow for personal attacks, or criticism. >It also does not allow for any dissension or opposition to the proposed >solution once it has been adopted. I understand that anyone raised on the >democratic ideal of "loyal opposition" and "nonviolent dissension" will find >this approach difficult. If a community adopts a plan, but part of the >community resists its adoption, the resistance itself may lead to the failure >of the plan, and it will never be known whether the plan was sound or not. >Only when all pursue the same goal can the chosen solution be determined to >be the correct one, or not. > >It is very difficult to both be honest, and not criticise. It can be done, >however. It is being done all over the world in small and large Baha'i >communities on every continent of the globe, but it isn't being done here on >alt.religion.bahai. > >I understand that this approach to problem solving is quite different from >either the dictatorial parent-child approach or the democratic child-child >methods the world is familiar with, but an adult-adult solution, while quite >difficult to attain, will always result in the best possible resolution to any >problem faced by human society. It requires strict honesty AND it requires >love. One or the other is easy, both together are very difficult, and require >intelligence, thoughtfulness and lots of practice. Lots. > >With respect, > >Robert A. Little > >In article <35c5ae2f.88472532@enews.newsguy.com>, > mirele@newsguy.com wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:28 GMT, rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) >> wrote: >> >> >Once again, what I have to say applies to everyone. It's not directed >> >at any specific individual. The title of my post says it best: >> >ENOUGH ALREADY! >> > >> >Nearly two months ago, I flew out to Los Angeles and Orange County for >> >a long weekend vacation. I left my laptop at home, so I was without >> >access to e-mail and Usenet. I had a wonderful time out there, as did >> >my friends. >> > >> >When I came home and caught up on a.r.b, I was dismayed by the >> >contents of several of the messages. Shortly afterwards, I went to >> >Europe for several weeks. Once again, I stopped following Usenet. >> >When I came home, I was stunned at the number of messages that had >> >been posted, so I didn't bother reading most of them. >> > >> >Now, in these last few days, I find myself reeling at what's contained >> >in some of these messages: insinuations that divine institutions were >> >behind the murder of a believer; breaches of netiquette; the smearing >> >of reputations; and so on. >> > >> >IMHO, this can do nothing except breed dissension and disunity. It's >> >giving aid and comfort to those who would break or have broken the >> >Covenant. Indeed, I can picture Mirza Muhammad Ali, the Center of >> >Sedition, taking a momentary pleasure in this. But only a momentary >> >pleasure, for the Cause of God will triumph over all obstacles. >> > >> >Let's try and remember how we should be conducting ourselves. We >> >should write our messages as though we were writing to 'Abdu'l-Baha. >> >Remember, He is lurking on a.r.b (so to speak). We should not be >> >engaging in character assassination, in defamation, calumny or >> >anything. >> > >> >And one more thing: the tenor of these discussions does not bode well >> >for the creation of talk.religion.bahai. >> >> What is this, a threat? >> >> I admit to being very distressed by what appears to be the Baha'i >> Faith acting like my nemesis the "Church" of $cientology in >> attempting to suppress discussion. I have a lot more respect for >> Bahai's but this is rather unnerving. >> >> May I remind you that Usenet is not a place to put forward your >> doctrine or dogma in an unchallenged vacuum. The $cientologists have >> learned that, much to their dismay. >> >> Deana Marie Holmes >> The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list) >> $cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today? >> mirele@xmission.com >> > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 6:54 AM Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! rlittle wrote: When an individual, or group of >individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity becomes >increasingly difficult, if not impossible. It appears to me that you spewed hatred and prejudice when this spring you repeatedly pushed me against the wall and demanded I post Bud Polk's hate mail and then once you achieved that objective back-tracked and refuse to comment on it since it didn't serve your purposes as you had imagined it would. It also appears to me that you and other Bahais who support censorship on soc.religion.bahai backbite all the time, me and others on alt.religion.bahai, and do have any qualms about it: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate4.htm See also the message below in which Dr. Juan Cole mentions he believes a Bahai administrator backbit him on more than one occasion. There are at least two or three other references thoroughout the messages on my Juan Cole page in which he mentions having been backbiting by a Hand of the Cause even I believe.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole4.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6q4ttd$jqb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Friends: > >Deana's response to "ENOUGH ALREADY" deserves a more detailed reply, in my >opinion. > >I agree with Deana - and I an certain Roger does also - that the active >suppression of the flow of information with the purpose of controlling both >the information and the intended recipients of it - people - is >reprehensible, and is the hallmark of a dictatorial, repressive mindset. > >What I believe that Roger Reini is feeling and saying is that from the Baha'i >perspective, unity is not a goal, it is the goal, and the vehicle for >attaining that goal is love, in all its many forms: courtesy, respect, >honesty, truthfulness, and so on. When an individual, or group of >individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity becomes >increasingly difficult, if not impossible. > >They create division where none exists. > >The free flow of information is imperative, is vital to the creation of a >world- embracing society where the diversity of peoples, rather than a >hindrance, becomes the means to a unified, organic whole. HOWEVER, there are >laws which govern human society. I do not refer to man made laws, but rather >the laws which actually, literally govern human society. > >Society is a composed organism, and the unifying force holding it together is >love. Destroy that binding force of love and you destroy the society. Anything >which creates or helps create greater love in a society is good, and anything >which destroys it is bad. > >The posts which Roger was referring to consisted of attacks on the character >and motives of named individuals, of the Institutions which Baha'u'llah >Himself ordained, and of the Baha'i Faith itself. > >The Baha'i Faith has developed a process for resolving conflicts and finding >solutions which works quite well. It does require a great deal of individual >responsibility and maturity to work. When a problem arises, the community >analyzes the situation to determine exactly what the problem is, then ideas >and suggestions are offered. Once a suggestion is put out, the individual who >offered it no longer owns it, it belongs to the group. Out of this process >the group develops the best available solution. All members of the group >adopt wholeheartedly the solution, acting and thinking as if the solution >were their own individual idea. The fact that the entire community is unified >will reveal any flaws or problems quickly, and the community can then correct >and improve. This process does not allow for personal attacks, or criticism. >It also does not allow for any dissension or opposition to the proposed >solution once it has been adopted. I understand that anyone raised on the >democratic ideal of "loyal opposition" and "nonviolent dissension" will find >this approach difficult. If a community adopts a plan, but part of the >community resists its adoption, the resistance itself may lead to the failure >of the plan, and it will never be known whether the plan was sound or not. >Only when all pursue the same goal can the chosen solution be determined to >be the correct one, or not. > >It is very difficult to both be honest, and not criticise. It can be done, >however. It is being done all over the world in small and large Baha'i >communities on every continent of the globe, but it isn't being done here on >alt.religion.bahai. > >I understand that this approach to problem solving is quite different from >either the dictatorial parent-child approach or the democratic child-child >methods the world is familiar with, but an adult-adult solution, while quite >difficult to attain, will always result in the best possible resolution to any >problem faced by human society. It requires strict honesty AND it requires >love. One or the other is easy, both together are very difficult, and require >intelligence, thoughtfulness and lots of practice. Lots. > >With respect, > >Robert A. Little > >In article <35c5ae2f.88472532@enews.newsguy.com>, > mirele@newsguy.com wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:28 GMT, rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) >> wrote: >> >> >Once again, what I have to say applies to everyone. It's not directed >> >at any specific individual. The title of my post says it best: >> >ENOUGH ALREADY! >> > >> >Nearly two months ago, I flew out to Los Angeles and Orange County for >> >a long weekend vacation. I left my laptop at home, so I was without >> >access to e-mail and Usenet. I had a wonderful time out there, as did >> >my friends. >> > >> >When I came home and caught up on a.r.b, I was dismayed by the >> >contents of several of the messages. Shortly afterwards, I went to >> >Europe for several weeks. Once again, I stopped following Usenet. >> >When I came home, I was stunned at the number of messages that had >> >been posted, so I didn't bother reading most of them. >> > >> >Now, in these last few days, I find myself reeling at what's contained >> >in some of these messages: insinuations that divine institutions were >> >behind the murder of a believer; breaches of netiquette; the smearing >> >of reputations; and so on. >> > >> >IMHO, this can do nothing except breed dissension and disunity. It's >> >giving aid and comfort to those who would break or have broken the >> >Covenant. Indeed, I can picture Mirza Muhammad Ali, the Center of >> >Sedition, taking a momentary pleasure in this. But only a momentary >> >pleasure, for the Cause of God will triumph over all obstacles. >> > >> >Let's try and remember how we should be conducting ourselves. We >> >should write our messages as though we were writing to 'Abdu'l-Baha. >> >Remember, He is lurking on a.r.b (so to speak). We should not be >> >engaging in character assassination, in defamation, calumny or >> >anything. >> > >> >And one more thing: the tenor of these discussions does not bode well >> >for the creation of talk.religion.bahai. >> >> What is this, a threat? >> >> I admit to being very distressed by what appears to be the Baha'i >> Faith acting like my nemesis the "Church" of $cientology in >> attempting to suppress discussion. I have a lot more respect for >> Bahai's but this is rather unnerving. >> >> May I remind you that Usenet is not a place to put forward your >> doctrine or dogma in an unchallenged vacuum. The $cientologists have >> learned that, much to their dismay. >> >> Deana Marie Holmes >> The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list) >> $cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today? >> mirele@xmission.com >> > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 6:58 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: fw Ron House Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:43 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai > > >>>Suzanne Gerstner wrote: >>> >>>> First I'd like to say something though. Personally, the subject line: >>>> "Baha'i Wives to Obey Husbands" bothers me tremendously because it's >>>> very misleading, so to balance it, I've changed it to say roughly the >>>> opposite. :-) Taken out of context the first sounds very "old world >>>> order". It gives the wrong impression about the principles of the >>>> Baha'i Faith. There are people who know nothing of the Baha'i teachings >>>> on the family, consultation or the equality of the sexes who could draw >>>> a wrong conclusion from this subject line without ever really >>>> investigating further. > >The mentality expressed here, that of dressing up Baha'i tenets and history >for consumption by potential Baha'i converts (often to the point of >misrepresenting and downright lying) is one of the cancers in the body >of the Faith. It is also harmful to the intellectual and moral health of >the individuals who engage in it, to use another phrase, it is bad for >the soul. It also tends, in my observation, to seep into other part of >one's life. It is ironic to think on Bahaullah's (I think it was his) >warning about not trusting an atheist because someone who could lie about >god could lie about other things. Just another Baha'i irony. >The other poison is the concept and treatment of "covenant breakers." >Between the two (putting on a good face to get converts and declaring/reviling >covenenant breakers), it has to make you wonder just what tortured >relationship the Baha'i Faith has with the ideas of truth and human >brotherhood. > >--Fran (<---member of an obsolete religion that does not, with very rare >exception, convert or excommunicate.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 7:03 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai You make a good point, George. Unfortunately, crossposting back and forth is the best that can be done in the absence of talk.religion.bahai.... The victory of Bahais to suppress it the first time around still continues, a year and half later, to have an impact.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ George/Marlena wrote in message <6q5nqi$dmp$1@news.eli.net>... >Dear Friends, >I feel it worth mentioning that AFAIK Suzanne does not visit this news >group. >The message that has been commented on by a few, was cross posted on the >back of a message by Ron House about a completely different subject. >Is it correct to continue in this line when the author my not be present >to give comments? Is this, then back biting? >I guess this is also one of the dangers of cross posting of which we may >need to >be aware. >PostOn. >George > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 7:11 AM Subject: Guy Macon's advice on crossposters I'm reposting this to help Bill Brewer and others who are complaining about crossposters on alt.religion.bahai know what they might do if they truly wish to be of some help.... ----------- Path: szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet .com!news.bb nplanet.com!news3.spinne.com!news.spinne.com!news.deltanet.com!not-for-mail From: guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Subject: how to deal with MAITREYA posts Date: 1 Dec 1997 13:34:17 GMT Organization: Electronics Engineer Lines: 89 Message-ID: <65uecp$7ak$3@news01.deltanet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ana0003.deltanet.com X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (16bit) X-No-Archive: yes Xref: szdc alt.religion.bahai:3716 Lesson #1 in maintaining an unmoderated newsgroup: crossposted threads. Right now. you have a problem with crossposted threads about MAITREYA. One such post was crossposted to: Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.bible.prophecy, talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.bahai What to do? STEP 1: Post 3 seperate posts to the three groups other than yours with a polite request to trim the newsgroups line. Here is tha one that I use in srq: **** start of quote ***** Please note that this was crossposted to: talk.religion.buddhism alt.bible.prophecy talk.religion.newage alt.religion.bahai Please trim your alt.religion.bahai from your 'Newsgroups:' line when you reply to this thread. **** end of quote ***** This will catch the few clueful folks who are crossposting. STEP 2: Email a polite request to everyone who crossposts to your newsgroup. **** start of quote ***** Hi! Would it be possible to remove alt.religion.bahai from the list of newsgroups that this is crossposted to? By having our group in your crossposting list, you cause us to also get every reply that your post generates. I don't want you to change what you are saying; I just want to keep it out of a newsgroup that is about Bahais. (I do realize that your newsreader probably just copied the list of groups from the message that you replied to. It's a pain to always check where your messages are going to be posted to, but it helps keep down the chaos if you do...) With most newsreader software, you trim newsgroups by moving your cursor up to the "Newsgroups:" line and using your delete key to remove unwanted groups. I personally like to remove any groups that I don't read. If I am mistaken and you really wanted to send your message to the Bahai newsgroup, please forgive me and ignore this; I am only trying to reach those who do not realize that they are sending copies of their messages to alt.religion.bahai. Thanks in advance for anything that you can do. YOUR NAME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS **** end of quote ***** Work it out among yourselfs so that only one of you sends the email, and keep a list so that you don't hit the same person twice. Be prepared for a lot of questions and a few flames. Answer the questions and ignore the flames. STEP 3: If, after a week of the above tactics, the thread continues, then do this: Reply to a post in the thread. Make your reply interesting and on the topic. You want this to be the sort of thing folks will reply to. remove alt.religion.bahai from the newsgroups line. This will cause the discussion to continue outside of your newsgroup. The key in all of this is unfailing superpoliteness, even in the face of insults and flames. One bahai flamer can ruin this plan, so you might have to correct each other when one of you becomes impolite... Try these methods, they are proven to work. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 7:35 AM To: RobertNik@aol.com Subject: Re: censorship Haven't received your messages yet. Have they been lost in cyberspace? -----Original Message----- From: RobertNik@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:20 AM Subject: Re: censorship >hi >Ive just made posts to talk.religion.bahai. >It does exist apparently ?? > >BTW - So do I presume that Soc.religion.bahai is personal property of Mr. >Hymen and colleagues? > >Ill forward you his post. You can post it so long as you delete my name from >it - these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO. > >In any case I dont particularly care. This is just a hobby, but I am very >irritated. > >regards > >Robert > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 8:50 AM Subject: All archives now available Xoom.com has fixed its ftp server and all archived files on alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.bahai are now available again. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 9:01 AM Subject: Scientology & Bahai Faith Bahais might find it enlightening to compare the experience of some people with scientology with soc.religion.bahai and so on.... It occurs to me that perhaps members or former members of scientology might find my web site and the present discussion on alt.religion.bahai interesting.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 9:09 AM Subject: Scientology & Bahai Faith Bahais might find it enlightening to compare the experience of some people with scientology with soc.religion.bahai and so on.... It occurs to me that perhaps members or former members of scientology might find my web site and the present discussion on alt.religion.bahai interesting.... See alt.religion.scientology too. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Bob Minton wrote in message <35cf2653.41963471@news.tiac.net>... >From: The Rockingham News, July 31, 1998. > >Local man helps many leave Scientology >Church says he distorts truth, >by Lara Bricker, Staff Writer > >Sandown - Just who is 51 year-old Robert Minton, and why has he spent >almost $2 million dollars helping people he feels have been victimized >by the Church of Scientology? > If you ask him, the Boston resident who owns a summer home on >Fremont road in Sandown will tell you it's because he doesn't believe >in Xenu, an evil galactic overlord who controlled nine planets in >this section of the galaxy 75 million years ago and then decided to do >a little population control by wiping out 7 billion people. > It is something Minton contends Scientologists are taught. And it's >an expensive lesson, he says, costing as much as $360,000 to get to >the top levels of the church. > According to Minton, Scientologists are taught that Xenu injected >all the "bad" people with glycerol and alcohol, froze them and then >sent them in rocket ships to Teegeak (the Scientologists' name for >Earth) where they were deposited in volcanoes on the Canary Islands >and Hawaii. > Minton feels the methods used by the church brainwash people and, >after extended exposure to these techniques, the critical thinking >capabilities of their brains are shut down. > "By the time they learn about Xenu, it wouldn't matter if the story >was a thousand times more bizarre." Minton says. "You're not able to >think, to make critical decisions. It's really chilling what these >people do." > After learning of what he calls an illegal attempt by the church to >remove a Web site containing information taken allegedly from their >sacred scriptures, he began to study the church. > "What could be said about somebody that's so bad that they try to >stop free speech," Minton said was his initial thought. > Kevin Hall, human rights officer for the church's Boston location, >said the reason the church was upset about the information on the Web >site was it had been altered and was untrue. > After the untimely death of church member Lisa McPherson in 1996, >Minton said he became more concerned about what was going on in the >church. He said McPherson was locked up for 17 days in a Scientology >headquarters in Clearwater, Fla., when she was in need of medical aid. > > "I thought this was pretty appalling," Minton says. "We got >together and said we're not going to let this get swept under the >carpet." > > Minton felt moved to pay the attorney fees in a wrongful death suit >McPherson's parents filed against the church. Since then, he has >assisted others he feels have been victims of the church. > He bought a house for Stacy Young and her husband who ran a shelter >for cats, which was shut down, Minton said they feel, as retribution >for their leaving the church. > > Minton is currently preparing to assist another church deserter who, >Minton said, plans to come forward with information about what goes on >within the confines of Scientology. One of those former church >members who doesn't want his identity or whereabouts revealed, has >information that apparently upset the church, Minton said. > > When contacted by phone, the former church member described Minton >as an angel come to help him. > > Hall said Wednesday, Scientologists question the methods used by >psychiatrists, especially the involuntarily commitment of individuals >to institutions. > "When they do it involuntarily, it's pretty un-American and >un-constitutional," Hall said. "Drugging is merely masking problems >and leads to addiction. Mental instability is usually something >physical." Hall added, "that's what we're fighting." > > A retired investment banker, Minton has returned to Sandown for the >past eight summers and, until last weekend, church protesters have not >targeted his rural home, although they have picketed his Boston >residence. > > The Church of Scientology is skeptical of Minton's motives, and a >spokesperson said he wants to know why the Sandown summer resident is >on a crusade to reform the church and why he is "spreading lies." >"He's trying to destroy the church," said Hall. > > Minton says the mind-control techniques the church uses could >account for why people haven't come forward until now. He says the >church instill fear in members. > > "you can become outside your body, can control matter, energy and >space," he said church members are told. "If I don't like you, I can >with my eyes kill you." > > Hall says Minton fails to recognize the good work the church has >done. > "When he spreads things, he certainly doesn't talk about literacy >programs, criminal rehabilitation programs in inner cities around the >country," Hall says. "He's not a nice guy." > Although the estimated number of Scientologists in New Hampshire >doesn't even make a dent in the estimated 8 million members worldwide, >Hall says they are around. He says there is a small mission in >Concord and estimates about 500 members live in New Hampshire. Due to >the size of the New Hampshire mission, Scientologists have had to >leave the state to reach the highest levels of the church, he said. > > Two of the protesters who picketed outside Minton's Sandown home >last weekend live in Newfields. > > Part of the allure of Scientology, Minton said, is the fact that >several well-known actors who have joined the church: Tom Cruise, John >Travolta and Lisa Marie Presley, to name a few. He said the celebrity >names make people think if people like that are involved it must be >legitimate. > > Hall says the philosophy of the church centers on helping people and >improving their ability to deal with and live their lives. As for the >skeptics, he says, they should not listen to Minton's claims. > "The church has a long track record of improving life. Millions of >people attest to it," Hall said. "What people should do is look at >the material on Scientology and think for yourself; learn to >understand life, think for yourself." > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 3:05 PM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: Proponents I doubt it, but you never know. It would be best if you asked her. She and I usually got along though we've had words on occasion, perhaps a year ago. Do you know her? She'd be an excellent choice politically and would bring a lot of votes with her I would think.... Do you have her email address? She and Juan Cole had some kind of falling out. I've noticed she's been posting to srb lately again and a long hiatus. Her article on "hikmat" is on my web site under srb if you're not familiar with it. Fran, maybe you could ask her? -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 11:27 AM Subject: Proponents >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Welcome aboard! And thanks.... I appreciate your >> willingness to take the heat, if the past is any >> indication of what to expect.... With the two of you, >> that makes four proponents, along with myself and >> Ron House who's recently agreed again. I'm hoping >> one of the "orthodox" voices will step forward or be >> drafted. Would you mind terribly if I wait a week or >> two until one of them agrees just to be sure we don't >> scare them off? I'll announce Ron House first as a >> proponent. That won't worry them. >> >> Fred > > >Sounds fine. Would Susan Maneck be willing? > >--Fran > ---------- From: George & Marlena[SMTP:geomar@ctaz.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 12:38 PM To: bahai-faith-owner@makelist.com Subject: Spam free?? I would like to know if anything can be done about the constant advertising of personal web sites in the posts on bahai-faith. It is my understanding, such as it is, that occasional references to web pages is allowed, but that the continued practice is not. Any reading of the list in the past few days, is sure to give you a good example. Thank you. George Decker geomar@ctaz.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 7:44 AM To: geomar@ctaz.com Subject: web sites Personally, George, I don't mind people advertising their web site in their signature files and don't see anything wrong with it. It's done all over the web and Usenet. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 8:06 AM Subject: Re: Virtues on the net (was Re: A Bahai technique) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35C79EC2.99A@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Ron House observes [. . .] that >> >> "I've found over the years that >> there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and >> others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so >> much he says something intemperate, . . . > >Although in my experience I have not observed anything of >the kind I would submit from watching a.r.b. that the >reverse can also be seen: if someone sets out to be >"provocative" in various ways, eventually someone will >say something intemperate and that will get pointed to >as evidence of some broader fault. > >> . . . then point out >> how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how >> nasty the dissenter is. . . . >[snip] > >Again, I have not observed anyone trying to point to >their own virtues (God forbid!) and hope that the >efforts of people who have patiently tried to make >reference to the Writings (among which I do not presume >to include myself [I realize that my posts may sometimes >come across as too sharp]) have not seemed to imply that. I believe any impartial and fair observer will quickly discern the messages based on sanctimony and ignoring other people's views.... > >FG> I hope new comers to alt.religion.bahai will be able to >> see through this technique. It is the common one often >> noted as in the FAQ: > >Whoops! I was afraid of this. Please, Frederick, "the FAQ" >is yours with some input from others -- I don't think that >anyone would be offended if you called it your FAQ. Thanks. You're free to contribute more to it. It does contain an acknowledgement that not all people share the interpretations there. In an imperfect world, one that God apparently wants to stay that way, it's the best that I can do, though we might all continue working on it to improve it. > >Back to the points above: I think what this indicates is >a need for all of us to remember the teachings about >forebearance and love and ... You fail to address the concerns of my original post. I don't consider ignoring other people's opinions a "virtue." I see nothing in the Bahai writings that do.... I refer you again to the last three or four paragraphs of the FAQ: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm [clipped off-topic quotations] Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 8:16 AM Subject: (Scientology & Bahai Faith (Re: ENOUGH ALREADY!) Deana Marie Holmes wrote in message <35c5ae2f.88472532@enews.newsguy.com>... >On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:28 GMT, rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) >wrote: >> Roger wrote: >>And one more thing: the tenor of these discussions does not bode well >>for the creation of talk.religion.bahai. > >Deana wrote: >What is this, a threat? > >I admit to being very distressed by what appears to be the Baha'i >Faith acting like my nemesis the "Church" of $cientology in >attempting to suppress discussion. I have a lot more respect for >Bahai's but this is rather unnerving. > >May I remind you that Usenet is not a place to put forward your >doctrine or dogma in an unchallenged vacuum. The $cientologists have >learned that, much to their dismay. Well this is the way the Bahai Faith seems to many Bahais, myself included.... Please look at this thread on alt.religion.bahai and how it has been intentionally misinterpreted or mishandled to make Deana appear to be supporting censorship in the Bahai Faith and the efforts of people opposed to the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, alt.religion.bahai, which should begin for the THIRD time on news.groups after August 28th. > > >Deana Marie Holmes >The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list) >$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today? >mirele@xmission.com Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 8:27 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! Roger Reini wrote in message <35c7eea1.36665881@news.newsguy.com>... >On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:01:17 GMT, rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >>Dear Friends: >> >>Deana's response to "ENOUGH ALREADY" deserves a more detailed reply, in my >>opinion. >> >>I agree with Deana - and I an certain Roger does also - that the active >>suppression of the flow of information with the purpose of controlling both >>the information and the intended recipients of it - people - is >>reprehensible, and is the hallmark of a dictatorial, repressive mindset. I direct you to the Bahai-discuss archives on my web site which contains many messages backbiting me and demonstrating every effort my Bahais to suppress and control the flow of information, specifically in regard to the SECOND interest poll for talk.religion.bahai last fall on news.groups. There is no evidence or reason to believe the private Bahai-only mailing list, bahai-discuss, is not being used this way right now, by the BCCA and others, to put together strategies to oppose and defeat talk.religion.bahai for the THIRD time, which should begin on news.groups after August 28th.... https://209.67.19.220/~fglaysher/Bahai-Discuss-Archive.txt > >Yes, I definitely agree. > >> >>What I believe that Roger Reini is feeling and saying is that from the Baha'i >>perspective, unity is not a goal, it is the goal, and the vehicle for >>attaining that goal is love, in all its many forms: courtesy, respect, >>honesty, truthfulness, and so on. When an individual, or group of >>individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >>spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity becomes >>increasingly difficult, if not impossible. Bahais, especially the moderators of soc.religionbahai, have shown that the vehicle for attaining "unity" is the same old intrigue and censorship dictators and oppressors have always used. Srb techniques are well represented in actuality, not theoretical "love" on my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Please note that backbiting is often used to accomplish Bahai ends. Mark Towfiq backbit me and talk.religion.bahai a year and a half ago, has yet to apologize for it, and has consistently been defended by Bahais for his actions: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Please note Dr. Juan Cole has repeatedly pointed out that Bahais have backbit him numerous times as well. If you have the time to skim through some of the 20+ messages by him on my web site, you'll find several in which he says so in detail: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole.htm > >Yes, that is what I meant, even if it didn't come through on the >original post. > >I wish I had said it so well in the first place. Thanks, Robert! > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 8:43 AM Subject: FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com August 5, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 8:59 AM Subject: Who's next? Bahais? (Re: a.r.s. Short FAQ for Newcomers version 0.11) David Gerard's FAQ: >16. No, Scientology doesn't really matter very much at all; it's small and >getting smaller. It's who tries this *next* that we have to worry about. It might be the Bahais. You might find interesting the present discussion on alt.religion.bahai, about the approaching THIRD interest poll on news.groups, after August 28th to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, that the Bahais can't control and manipulate the way they do with soc.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ David Gerard wrote in message <6q746v$bfm$1@thingy.apana.org.au>... > >This is the *quick* FAQ, the one to give people first up. The succour of >the confused and overloaded lurker. Suggestions are welcomed. The idea is >to keep it no more than a page (66 lines) in length (between the lines) >and 78 (pref.75) characters in width. > >https://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/links/ufaq.txt ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 12:54 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Proponents Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I doubt it, but you never know. It would be best if you asked > her. She and I usually got along though we've had words > on occasion, perhaps a year ago. Do you know her? She'd > be an excellent choice politically and would bring a lot of > votes with her I would think.... Do you have her email > address? > > She and Juan Cole had some kind of falling out. I've noticed > she's been posting to srb lately again and a long hiatus. Her > article on "hikmat" is on my web site under srb if you're not > familiar with it. > > Fran, maybe you could ask her? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fran Baker Fred, I will ask her. I haven't spoken (electronically) with her for a long time. I found her always very kind and intelligent. I was on the Irfan mailing list for a while thanks to her. That was a refreshing and productive forum in which I felt very comfortable. She was at Berry College at the time. Then she dropped out of sight for a while and has now come back, as you noticed, and is at Stetson University. I will get back in touch with her (I was going to do that anyway) and ask her about being a proponent. I'm sorry she and Juan may have had a falling out, though it doesn't altogether surprise me; she is still devoted to the Faith in a way he is not. I'll let you know the outcome. --Fran PS When you said "orthodox" proponents, I assume you mean establishment types, not the Orthodox Baha'is (CBs), right. Gosh, how many CBs can there be? How scary can they really be? Is there a list of CBs somewhere? List of banned books? "Catalog of Errors"? Someone once commented to me that it was interesting that it was the fundamentalist Christians who were most afraid of Satanism, Wicca, etc., when less religious people were usually not. His remark was that, ironically, the less religious usually believed in only one god, whereas the fundamentalists believed in two (God and the Devil)! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 4:13 PM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: Proponents Fran, I'm sorry she and Juan may have had a falling out, >though it doesn't altogether surprise me; she is still devoted to the >Faith in a way he is not. Juan may have told me that in confidence, though I can't recall. Maybe that should stay between ourselves. I share your perception here regarding their different sensibilities, though she's fairly liberal and outspoken on some matters. Look at her current comments on srb regarding cb's for instance.... > >I'll let you know the outcome. Okay. > >--Fran > >PS When you said "orthodox" proponents, I assume you mean establishment >types, not the Orthodox Baha'is (CBs), right. I was just using the term generically.... Not especially interested in the cbs. They're all too farout for my tastes. Gosh, how many CBs can >there be? How scary can they really be? Is there a list of CBs >somewhere? Srb probably has one.... >List of banned books? "Catalog of Errors"? It must exist somewhere or will eventually.... Incidentally, I've spent several years of my life in Illinois. My wife recalls a Frank Baker from around Champaign somewhere, related somehow to Dorothy Baker. Not the same one by chance? Let me suggest, when you can, you both make your presence felt by posting once in a while to arb so that when I think the timing is right and announce you've agreed to be proponents people recognize who you are.... Things need to get moving here shortly in the right direction to begin discussing the last RFD and the revising of it. If past experience serves, it will take several weeks to get people to agree begrudgingly.... Thanks again, Fran, for your and your husband's willingness to get involved.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 4:49 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Divisive messages & responses (was Re: re hate mail ...) >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35C8A6D4.5EEA@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> . . . as was done by the BCCA >> with bahai@hotmail.com, . . . > >I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Do you mean to accuse >BCCA of somehow being connected with the above anonymous address? >On what evidence? Please be careful about seeming to make such >accusations. It's entirely possible.... Please see the BCCA files my website for the history of bahai@hotmail.com and the intrigues orchestrated by the BCCA during the last two interest polls. As I have stated a number of times, lacking any response or investigation by the Universal House of Justice, which I've repeatedly brought to their attention and requested that they conduct, they themselves may very well be behind the efforts of the BCCA to oppose talk.religion.bahai.... It's quite possible they're all ready putting together the machinery to attempt to defeat talk.religion.bahai for the THIRD time.... It's quite possible the srb "moderators" banning my signature file was an excuse dreamt up by the BCCA and condoned by the UHJ.... In this environment, nothing can be ruled out.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm Osborn wrote: >As has been said before, one is quite aware that you and some others >have an issue with s.r.b. moderation, or some aspects of its >application. There are various ways to deal with a complaint -- >constructive criticism would seem to be the best way of dealing with >any dissatisfaction that someone may have with moderation. Your comments here do not address the issue of their censoring many people for more than a year and a half now. For evidence, those interested may look at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm >> >Also, I don't recall ever reading >> >anyone on this ng "proclaiming their virtue" (which would >> >be at least as bad as someone denigrating someone else), >> >> See rlittle's messages. He's good at it.... > >I don't see how his writing can be construed as "procaliming >[his] virtue." I've answered this before. Neither you nor him have answered his conduct regarding the harassment of Bud Polk: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate4.htm >I guess our perceptions are sharply different here. I see >some people trying to share the teachings as guidelines for >all (not just some) and positive experiences as examples of >aspects of Baha'i community life that might otherwise escape >mention on this ng. I see now place in the writings where it's considered a positive example to censor people and then ignore their concerns. The current FAQ dated July 5th contains three or four paragraphs at the end that discuss in detail the real examples Bahais are demonstrating here for the Usenet community.... The updated version is also on my web site https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm >The thread began with a posting by "bahai@hotmail.com" and got a >negative reaction from several people. Produce the evidence.... I don't recall it. Which I'm sure can't be done for rlittle's silence once I produced the Bud Polk's harassing hate mail.... >What you term "your own purposes" here were to point out that >people have responded to divisive messages directed against you >(though not to every one, of course). I also recall having >responded to a few negative messages about you apparently from >Baha'is and non-Baha'is (this was a while ago). Very rare, indeed, by any Bahais.... As for yourself, I don't recall a single instance. Produce in from www.dejanews.com if you can.... The real divisiveness is perpetrated by fundamentalist Bahais who have no respect or tolerance for opinions other than the most narrow in scope and orthodoxy.... They themselves have brought about this crisis of faith and keep it going by their continual, unremitting efforts to suppress and control all discussion.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 3:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: proponents Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I want to mention too, since you brought up addressing > other newsgroups lately, that alt.religion.scientology > is one we should really spend more time on. There's > a huge traffic there that most consists of people who > have left and are against religious/cult control of any > kind. (Am I repeating myself) During the first vote > I ignored many x-scientologists who came out of > nowhere and stated they perceived the Bahai Faith > in similar terms. One of them (Donna) has come back > on arb lately making the same points. I've posted a > few messages to alt.religion.scientology in reply or > mentioning my web site and the number of hits has > gone balistic in the last few days it seems.... It might > be helpful if you, or Fran, if you can't get a.r.scientology > either, to have more than one person, i.e., myself > posting in that direction during the next month or two. > Just a thought.... There may be a lot of votes in that > direction.... Hi Fred, Yes, good idea. I'd better subscribe... :-) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 8:52 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: FAQ Right. I've never heard the alt.* hierarchy referred to as "local" news, but I suppose that's one way of thinking of it, national or world news, versus local.... George wrote in message <6qbieb$b7u$1@news.eli.net>... >Dear Frederick, >Is this what you mean about the difference in alt and talk hierarchy? Alt is >local news >hierarchy and talk "one of the most widely distributed areas of the Usenet >hierarchy. >PostOn >George > >Copied from: https://usenet.miningco.com/ >Archive-name: usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1 >Original-author: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) >Comment: enhanced & edited until 5/93 by spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) >Last-change: 31 Jan 1997 by newgroups-request@isc.org (David C Lawrence) > > GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATIONREQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION: >These are guidelines that have been generally agreed upon across >Usenet as appropriate for following in the creating of new newsgroups >in the "standard" Usenet newsgroup hierarchy. They are NOT intended as >guidelines for setting Usenet policy other than group creations, and >they are not intended to apply to "alternate" or local news >hierarchies. The part of the namespace affected is comp, humanities, >misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk, which are the most widely-distributed >areas of the Usenet hierarchy. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:12 AM To: webmaster@ciec.org Subject: Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:18 AM To: lawya@leeds.ac.uk Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:20 AM To: jw@bway.net Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:22 AM To: newsfeedback@wired.com Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:25 AM To: vtw@vtw.org Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:26 AM To: pfaw@pfaw.org Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:27 AM To: rcfp@rcfp.org Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:28 AM To: clay@panix.com Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:30 AM To: webmaster@netcaucus.org Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:32 AM To: editor@clari.net Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:35 AM To: dwaink@on-net.net Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:36 AM To: info@gilc.org Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:37 AM To: info@ifea.net Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:40 AM To: news@freedomforum.org Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:41 AM To: campbels@metronet.lib.mi.us Subject: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your members that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your members might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:46 AM To: PortlandPaper@server.nlis.net Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:48 AM To: release@starnews.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:56 AM To: wsjcontact@cor.dowjones.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:04 AM To: letters@latimes.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ 668 Bolinger Rochester Hills, MI 48307 248-608-6424 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:15 AM To: oped@csps.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:16 AM To: chronfeedback@sfgate.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:19 AM To: New York Times Cc: United Press International; Editor Reuters Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Who's next? Bahais? Hartley Patterson wrote in message <35C8AEC0.4701@vossnet.co.uk>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> It might be the Bahais. You might find interesting the present discussion >> on alt.religion.bahai, about the approaching THIRD interest poll on >> news.groups, after August 28th to create an unmoderated newsgroup, >> talk.religion.bahai, that the Bahais can't control and manipulate the way >> they do with soc.religion.bahai. > >If the Bah'ai Faith is behaving badly in similar ways to the CoS, then >by all means let us know and we'll put them on our list of religions to >destroy! > >But I can't personally see that controlling a moderated newsgroup when >an unmoderated one already exists put the Bah'ai into the big league of >evil, manipulative cults. The CoS also had a 'moderated newsgroup' >equivalent, an AOL bulletin board, and by all accounts it is hilariously >full of gushing 'me too' culties fighting to see who can praise L Ron >Hubbard and His Wonderful Church the most. Really, it's more extensive than this.... There's been a concerted effort to prevent freedom of speech and conscience since the mid-eighties by many accounts. Numerous people have been silenced or driven out of the Bahai Faith, much of which is documented on my web site, especially under Controversial Documents and the Juan Cole link. The Bahai effort to prevent the creation of talk.religion.bahai has merely been the latest and most public upheaval in this regard. The resistance to talk.religion.bahai is primarily motivated by the desire to keep absolute control, or as much as possible, over everything said regarding the Bahai Faith. A move from the alt.* hierarchy to the talk.* would make many more people aware of the contradictions and censorship many Bahais are involved in everyday.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:48 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Scientology link add to Bahai web site I've added link to my web site, the Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, to David Gerard Scientology FAQs and a pointer to alt.religion.scientology. It seems to me there is a pronounced similarity of experience between many Scientologists and Bahais and people from, or formerly from, both persuasions might benifit from comparing the two.... I especially recommend David Gerard's Beginner's Guide. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 7:17 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Scientology link add to Bahai web site By and large, I do agree with you here.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Scientology link add to Bahai web site >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> I've added link to my web site, the Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >> Conscience, to David Gerard Scientology FAQs and a pointer to >> alt.religion.scientology. It seems to me there is a pronounced similarity >> of experience between many Scientologists and Bahais and people >> from, or formerly from, both persuasions might benifit from comparing >> the two.... I especially recommend David Gerard's Beginner's Guide. > >To me there is little comparison. Scientology is a >cruel scam, pure and simple. The mistakes, idiocies, >and injustices of the Baha'i hierarchy may be serious, >but they just aren't in the same league at all. If only >Baha'i mainstreamers would cease being so fundamentalist, >there could be something good here, but the only good >thing you could do to scientology is get rid of it. > >Personally, I think persuing a perceived similarity >between these two won't convince anyone of anything >much at all. That isn't to say that individuals in >the BF might not feel like victims of scientology, >but any conclusions you might draw from that about the >nature of the BF institutions simply isn't credible. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 7:56 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6q4ttd$jqb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... . When an individual, or group of >individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity becomes >increasingly difficult, if not impossible. It's taken me a few days to find the right messages on my web site in which Juan Cole refers to Bahais BACKBITING him on a number of occasions.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole5.htm https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole4.htm https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole9.htm Again, I point out that the messages in bahai-discuss archive files on my web site are full of Bahais viciously backbiting me and conspiring to deprive me of my rights as a Bahai to have access to the roughly fifteen or so private Bahai-only mailing lists. Again, to the BCCA files, I'd add the bahai hate mail I've received as, broadly speaking, more Bahai backbiting.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Who's next? Bahais? Hartley Patterson wrote in message <35CA5C63.2216@vossnet.co.uk>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Really, it's more extensive than this.... There's been a concerted >> effort to prevent freedom of speech and conscience since the >> mid-eighties by many accounts. Numerous people have been >> silenced or driven out of the Bahai Faith, much of which is >> documented on my web site, especially under Controversial >> Documents and the Juan Cole link. > >Yes, I did take a look at your site. As a complete outsider to Bah'ai, I >found it difficult to grasp what it was about - either it is intended >for Bah'ai members only or it needs a 'newcomers start here' page! Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, in looking in on David Gerard's Scientology FAQs web site, I found his Beginner's Guide quite helpful, so I'll have to consider something similar for my page too. I appreciate your pointing that need out! > >> A move from the alt.* hierarchy >> to the talk.* would make many more people aware of the >> contradictions and censorship many Bahais are involved in >> everyday.... > >Now that I really don't understand. There has AFAIK been no call on >alt.religion.scientology to move to a (ahem) 'respectable' heirachy such >as talk.* or soc.*, not on grounds of propagation anyway. But then I see >my newsserver (cableinet) doesn't have alt.religion.bahai... THAT has been the problem for a year and a half. Many Bahais and others do not have access to the alt.* hierarchy and take soc.religion.bahai as the authoritative last word.... Those who do, have insisted it remain so while censoring and suppressing most or many differing views. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Michael T. Richter wrote in message ... We are expected >to fight injustice, for example, but violence is explicitly forbidden. Can you explain why that doesn't include the injustice many people have experienced of censorship at soc.religion.bahai? This is clearly a double, self-serving standard, i.e., only the "injustices" approved of by conservative Bahais who regularly censor and suppress the views of Bahais and non-Bahais they don't agree with.... A fast glance at my web site ought to convince most fairminded people that there are serious reasons for concern.... In terms of violence, recent discussion on alt.religion.bahai has shown that at least several Bahais came to the separate conclusions that the execution-style murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut in 1982 may have been an "inside" job.... It remains unsolved.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 8:37 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35CA0686.FFA@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Inducto wrote (in part): >>Moderated groups have their place. For some, they may just be a more >>convenient form of the private lists that already exist. I'd have no problem >>with the CoS _also_ having a moderated group like s.r.s.m. as they proposed >>(but apparently decided to drop), and I'd suggest that similarly there should >>be an _unmoderated_ baha'i forum. > >There is an unmoderated ng, news:alt.religion.bahai . There have been >two attempts to establish an unmoderated "talk.religion.bahai" ng: the >first was defeated overwhelmingly amidst contoversy and some vitriole; >the second, which involved a good degree of consultation, failed for >lack of sufficient votes (as per news:news.groups regulars). The first attempt was defeated 157 to 691, a massive onslaught of Bahai voted NO in outrage and intolerance at the notion that anyone might say something that had cleared an official Bahai censor.... Mark Towfiq, a member of the Bahai Computer and Communication Association (BCCA), posted a message soliciting NO votes to three Bahai-only mailing lists working behind the scenes to crush the legitimate desires of 157 Bahais and non-Bahais who tired of censorship on soc.religion.bahai.... The BCCA also schemed behind the scenes to defeat the second interest poll on news.groups. The BCCA files on my archives page documents this episode: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm > >One hopes that the third go around will take the high road and build on >broad common ground -- there may be sufficient interest to justify >another Baha'i ng, as demonstrated by threads such as this one on other >ngs, and formation of such a group does not have to be predicated on >opposition to moderation or on insinuations of "censorship" or whatever >in the Baha'i community. Conservative Bahais continue to deny the fact of constant and ongoing censorship on soc.religion.bahai. Their technique has been widely noticed by many Bahai and non-Bahai observers, on news.groups and elsewhere. The FAQ has three such observations at the end of it on this Bahai technique and many on soc.religion.bahai might find it interesting to compare Bahai strategies with those of Scientology: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >There's more to this whole issue (about which one becomes weary), but >I will spare a.r.s. any more. This will be my last posting on this >thread here. > >Don Osborn > >For more on the Baha'i Faith, see: https://www.bahai.org As anyone who will take the time to skim around the messages on alt.religion.bahai will discover, Mr. Osborn has been an unremitting defender of soc.religion.bahai and apologist for Bahai censorship in general.... He consistently ignores the concerns and experiences of Bahais and non-Bahais with the suppression of their views on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere in the Bahai "world." Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35C9F8B7.77FF@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >The Exile wrote (in part): >> I understand that Baha'is have a moderated news group where criticism >>is limited or banned. This is unfortunate, personally I prefer the >>anarchy of unregulated forums despite the flames and contention. > >Since the topic came up -- the ng in question is news:soc.religion.bahai >Its policy (including policy for moderation) is at: >https://www.bcca.org/services/srb/welcome.html . Which is arbitrarily and inconsistently applied, always for political reasons... Many criticisms and examples of censored messages can be found on my web site page on soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm >Actually there are threads on controversial topics (anyone interested >can browse the archives: https://bounty.bcca.org/services/srb/archive/ ), These will give a false impression. A thread will often if not usually be cut off as soon as it is started. One someone attempts to respond to a fundamentalist or conservative Bahai they find their messages rejected for specious reasons. Many examples exist at the link I've given above. A particular good one is the suppression of my response to William Collins: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/SRB251198.htm >nevertheless some who perhaps share your preference in ng environment, >have objected to the limitations of moderation or alleged >inconsistencies in its application (moderation, especially on a topic >very important to many people, seems a difficult & thankless task!). Censorship, not moderation, is the only appropriate word for the actions and intrigues of those who control soc.religion.bahai, shaping it to their own designs, creating for the unsuspecting reader a false picture of the reality of thought and belief by Bahais and non-Bahais on the Bahai Faith today.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:02 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Divisive messages & responses (was Re: re hate mail ...) Roger Reini wrote in message <35d135fe.192938830@news.newsguy.com>... >On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:49:48 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >>It's entirely possible.... Please see the BCCA files my website for >>the history of bahai@hotmail.com and the intrigues orchestrated >>by the BCCA during the last two interest polls. As I have stated >>a number of times, lacking any response or investigation by the >>Universal House of Justice, which I've repeatedly brought to >>their attention and requested that they conduct, they themselves >>may very well be behind the efforts of the BCCA to oppose >>talk.religion.bahai.... > >I seriously doubt that that is the case. The House has far more >important things to worry about. Besides, the House has stated that >it does not object to unmoderated discussions about the Faith. There is no evidence to the contrary. Often in religious and political history an institution or leader has said one thing and conspired by the scenes to suppress, control, manipulated, and, indeed, even murder, opponents or people holding varying views.... Given the pervasive climate of censorship and control, given the obsessive desire of conservative Bahais to keep most other Bahais ISOLATED from any views other than the most narrowly defined by themselves as orthodox, nothing can really be ruled out with certainty.... I have twice brought these concerns to the attention of the Universal House of Justice: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/To-UHJ1.htm https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ72498.htm The atmosphere of opposition to freedom of religious conscience and speech only continues to worsen.... In over twenty years as a Bahai, I can never remember the UHJ expressing anything but disapproval of the freedom of conscience Abdu'l-Baha respected.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:05 AM Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY! Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6qepv3$fk5@news1.newsguy.com>... >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ><6q4ttd$jqb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >. When an individual, or group of >>individuals, violates the Baha'i tenets and backbites against another, or >>spews hatred or prejudice, they create an environment in which unity >becomes >>increasingly difficult, if not impossible. > >It's taken me a few days to find the right messages on my >web site in which Juan Cole refers to Bahais BACKBITING him >on a number of occasions.... > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole5.htm > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole4.htm > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole9.htm OOPS! Left one out! https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/anonymou2.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:11 AM To: Ron House Subject: news release Ron, I've contact about a dozen newspapers including the ones below with the attached message. It seems to me talking with the conservatives is counterproductive.... Any local papers on your side of world you might think of? It seems to me though that we should keep this to ourselves in hope that a few articles might appear. Otherwise, Bahais might take some kind of actions to counteract this as they usually do.... New York Times Washington Post Wall Street Journal Los Angeles Times USA Today Chicago Tribune Star Tribune Christian Science Monitor San Francisco Chronicle --------- news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-fait h/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:14 AM To: newsroom@timesnewspapers.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:16 AM To: hci@chron.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:23 AM To: sun@sunnews.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:26 AM To: ohio@akron.infi.net Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:27 AM To: jrnledit@ajc.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:28 AM To: conedit@ajc.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:33 AM To: letter@globe.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:35 AM To: letters@suntimes.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ 668 Bolinger Rochester Hills, MI 48307 248-608-6424 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:36 AM To: talktous@insidedenver.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:38 AM To: letters@courant.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:47 AM To: feedback@thewire.ap.org Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:55 AM To: letters@sjmercury.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:58 AM To: letters@pilotonline.com Cc: bmw@pilotonline.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:02 AM To: national@SPTimes.com Cc: letters@sptimes.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:05 AM To: features@pni.com Cc: comments@www.azcentral.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:06 AM To: feedback@al.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:10 AM To: letters@newsday.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:14 AM To: wlundy@pioneerpress.com Cc: dwyatt@pioneerpress.com Subject: news release I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Jonathan Wallace[SMTP:jw@bway.net] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 7:17 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: Thanks.....I'll run this in the letters column of the next Spectacle. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more > than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated > newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members > of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and > systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai > by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The > THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on > news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. > > Your members that might be interested in this area of > religious freedom and free speech might find interesting > the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive > files on my web site. > > I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance > or advice your members might be able to offer. > > Thank you. > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, > talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) > Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -- -------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net Publisher, The Ethical Spectacle, https://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996) https://www.spectacle.org/freespch "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 11:35 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Susan Hi Fred, Susan says that she will consider co-sponsoring the new group (trb) after looking at the documentation of what happened to me and discussing it with the moderators and seeing what kind of answers she gets. She wasn't born yesterday, so there is a real possibility she may lend her support. I'll let you know. Have a good weekend. Warmest unaffiliated regards! (-; Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 9:01 AM To: John Noland Subject: Re: Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology Please post this on a public forum and then I'll read it.... Please do not email me directly again.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: John Noland To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, August 07, 1998 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology >>As anyone who will take the time to skim around the messages >>on alt.religion.bahai will discover, Mr. Osborn has been an >>unremitting defender of soc.religion.bahai and apologist for >>Bahai censorship in general.... He consistently ignores the >>concerns and experiences of Bahais and non-Bahais with the >>suppression of their views on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere >>in the Bahai "world." >> >>Frederick Glaysher > > >Dear Frederick, > >I follow this newsgroup on a regular basis, I even post occasionally. >I've read most of the material on you web page several times. I must >admit, I don't get you or your purpose. You appear to dislike and distrust >Baha'is in general. You are prone to extreme exaggeration and you >make abusive generalizations about many people who disagree with >you. Note the above. D. Osborn has never been anything but kind and >forebearing towards you. I haven't seen anything written by him that >warrants the point of view you propose above. > >You have also done this same sort of thing with Robert Little. He's never >been abusive towards you. He questioned the validity of your claims of >threatening e-mail from Bud Polk, by asking you to substantiate your claim >by posting the actual e-mail. Bud Polk's e-mail turned out to be completely >non-threatening, just a bunch of personal facts about you that he culled from >internet sources. > >As I've noted before, he did this in response to your attempt to embarrass him >by posting a letter of his you found through dejanews. If I remember correctly, >one of the groups his note was crossposted to was a standup comedy group. >Hardly anything that should warrant concern from the people on this group as >you claimed as your reason for posting it. > >I don't know why you do these things. I'm not personally acquainted with you >or any other Baha'i on this newsgroup. I have no association with any Baha'i >organization, except my small LSA in Texas. Are you going to go the divisive >route in response and label me a fundamentalist Baha'i? Are you going to >accuse me of being part of some sort of conspiracy? Are you going to just >attack me with more of your rhetoric? Or are you going to respond in a civil >manner that allows for genuine dialogue and possibly consultation to help >all of us make the Baha'i Faith all it should be? > >Thank you, > >John > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 9:02 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: fyi -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Wallace To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, August 07, 1998 7:09 PM Subject: Re: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >Thanks.....I'll run this in the letters column of the next Spectacle. > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> I'd like to bring to the attention of your organization the more >> than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated >> newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members >> of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and >> systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai >> by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The >> THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on >> news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. >> >> Your members that might be interested in this area of >> religious freedom and free speech might find interesting >> the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive >> files on my web site. >> >> I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance >> or advice your members might be able to offer. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > >-- >-------------------------------------- >Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net >Publisher, The Ethical Spectacle, https://www.spectacle.org >Co-author, Sex Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996) >https://www.spectacle.org/freespch > >"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 9:20 AM Subject: 2571+ hits on web site since May 8, 1998 As of this morning, three months after creating my web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, there have been over 2,571 hits on it. At roughly 28 hits a day, that's way more interest in freedom of speech and conscience in the Bahai Faith than I ever imagined when I first started working on it.... Since most of the sub-pages, if you will, do not have a counter on them, the actual number of hits could very well be much higher by many hundreds.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 10:00 AM Subject: Re: Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35CB7798.6D86@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>...> >*sigh* I'll respond on alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >(with a new title, as this no longer has anything to do with >Scientology) I believe there are real similarities between the experience of many Scientologists and Bahais.... Since many censored messages can be found on my web site to corroborate this claim, I will not cite them in detail but let the interested party decide for him or herself.... In defense, since a number of Bahais have posted to alt.religion.scientology attempting to characterize me in a negative light, let me point out that people might wish to read the last three paragraphs of the FAQ which discusses further this technique on the part of Bahais. From reading the site Scientology FAQs, I believe this is analogous to what some have experience with Scientology, and therefore perhaps relevant for comparison by people interested in understanding the way Scientology works. Often in human experience, we understand one phenomenon better by comparing it to another: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 2:45 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Michael T. Richter wrote in message ... >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6qerkk$g1n@news1.newsguy.com>... >>> We are expected to fight injustice, for example, >>> but violence is explicitly forbidden. > >> Can you explain why that doesn't include the injustice many >> people have experienced of censorship at soc.religion.bahai? > >Can you supply evidence of this? For example, can you supply a message you >submitted which was bounced, complete with the moderator's note as to why it >was bounced? Your web page is incredibly self-serving and one-sided -- as a >source of information it is about as useful as https://www.scientology.org. Sure, here's a link to such a message: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm Notice, please, it includes a former Bahai, now convert to Islam, stating the putative reasons given by the "moderators" at srb are falacious.... [clip for sake of brevity] >> In terms of violence, recent discussion on alt.religion.bahai >> has shown that at least several Bahais came to the >> separate conclusions that the execution-style murder of >> Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut in 1982 may >> have been an "inside" job.... It remains unsolved.... > >Details and evidence, please. Or are you fond of spreading unsubstantiated >rumour? The messages relating to this were recently and should still be on most servers for alt.religion.bahai. If not, they can be found on the archive for bahai-faith@makelist.com See my signature file for the link.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Michael T. Richter wrote in message ... >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6qerkk$g1n@news1.newsguy.com>... >>> We are expected to fight injustice, for example, >>> but violence is explicitly forbidden. > >> Can you explain why that doesn't include the injustice many >> people have experienced of censorship at soc.religion.bahai? > >Can you supply evidence of this? For example, can you supply a message you >submitted which was bounced, complete with the moderator's note as to why it >was bounced? Your web page is incredibly self-serving and one-sided -- as a >source of information it is about as useful as https://www.scientology.org. Sure, here's a link to such a message: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm Notice, please, it includes a former Bahai, now convert to Islam, stating the putative reasons given by the "moderators" at srb are falacious.... [clip for sake of brevity] >> In terms of violence, recent discussion on alt.religion.bahai >> has shown that at least several Bahais came to the >> separate conclusions that the execution-style murder of >> Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut in 1982 may >> have been an "inside" job.... It remains unsolved.... > >Details and evidence, please. Or are you fond of spreading unsubstantiated >rumour? The messages relating to this were recently and should still be on most servers for alt.religion.bahai. If not, they can be found on the archive for bahai-faith@makelist.com See my signature file for the link.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 2:53 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Rev Dennis Erlich wrote in message <35cd32f1.2579069@news.concentric.net>... >"Frederick Glaysher" : > >>Michael T. Richter wrote in message ... >> >> We are expected >>>to fight injustice, for example, but violence is explicitly forbidden. >> >>Can you explain why that doesn't include the injustice many >>people have experienced of censorship at soc.religion.bahai? >>This is clearly a double, self-serving standard, i.e., only the >>"injustices" approved of by conservative Bahais who regularly >>censor and suppress the views of Bahais and non-Bahais >>they don't agree with.... A fast glance at my web site ought >>to convince most fairminded people that there are serious >>reasons for concern.... > > Why not just start your own non-moderated newsgroup? The problem starting talk.religion.bahai has been conservative Bahais have vehemently opposed its creation for more than a year and a half and done everything possible to prevent it from being created.... From actively campaigning against it as the member of the Bahai Computer and Communciation Association Mark Towfiq did to using that same supposedly Bahai institution to discredit and attack me at key moments of discussion of the proposal when many Bahais were leaning in its favor.... Tell your >story and be done with it. I wish it were so easy to return to a normal life.... >There's absolutely nothing wrong with >moderated newsgroups, except for those that shouldn't bother using >them. > >>In terms of violence, recent discussion on alt.religion.bahai >>has shown that at least several Bahais came to the >>separate conclusions that the execution-style murder of >>Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut in 1982 may >>have been an "inside" job.... It remains unsolved.... > > Last century? Give me a break. Have they locked anyone away and >tortured them to death LATELY? I'm assuming you misread the date. That's this century.... If you want, you could look at the Controversial Documents on my web site and under Juan Cole, for instance, to discover that many people have had their lives profoundly disturbed and upset by fundamentalist Bahais who have been quite willing to go to almost any length to stop silence them.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Rev Dennis Erlich wrote in message <35cd32f1.2579069@news.concentric.net>... >"Frederick Glaysher" : > >>Michael T. Richter wrote in message ... >> >> We are expected >>>to fight injustice, for example, but violence is explicitly forbidden. >> >>Can you explain why that doesn't include the injustice many >>people have experienced of censorship at soc.religion.bahai? >>This is clearly a double, self-serving standard, i.e., only the >>"injustices" approved of by conservative Bahais who regularly >>censor and suppress the views of Bahais and non-Bahais >>they don't agree with.... A fast glance at my web site ought >>to convince most fairminded people that there are serious >>reasons for concern.... > > Why not just start your own non-moderated newsgroup? The problem starting talk.religion.bahai has been conservative Bahais have vehemently opposed its creation for more than a year and a half and done everything possible to prevent it from being created.... From actively campaigning against it as the member of the Bahai Computer and Communciation Association Mark Towfiq did to using that same supposedly Bahai institution to discredit and attack me at key moments of discussion of the proposal when many Bahais were leaning in its favor.... Tell your >story and be done with it. I wish it were so easy to return to a normal life.... >There's absolutely nothing wrong with >moderated newsgroups, except for those that shouldn't bother using >them. > >>In terms of violence, recent discussion on alt.religion.bahai >>has shown that at least several Bahais came to the >>separate conclusions that the execution-style murder of >>Dr. Daniel Jordan in Stamford, Connecticut in 1982 may >>have been an "inside" job.... It remains unsolved.... > > Last century? Give me a break. Have they locked anyone away and >tortured them to death LATELY? I'm assuming you misread the date. That's this century.... If you want, you could look at the Controversial Documents on my web site and under Juan Cole, for instance, to discover that many people have had their lives profoundly disturbed and upset by fundamentalist Bahais who have been quite willing to go to almost any length to stop silence them.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 3:03 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Graham@acemake.comREMOVEME wrote in message <54ELjDApB1y1EwIF@fragrant.demon.co.uk>... >In article <6qfif6$ev1$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, Fran Baker > writes >>Hi Jim, >> >>The problems with what Mark Towfiq did, in my opinion, are (1) he >>campaigned for a NO vote, which seems against the spirit >>of the Baha'i policy on voting (confirmed by the UHJ's statement >>on the vote) and > > >Here we go again.. The above expression seems to me quite unfair. It seems to attempt to suggest that anyone who would bring up the dishonest and underhanded attack committed by Mark Towfiq against the 157 people who legitimated voted YES for an unmoderated newsgroup the first time is somehow the person who is really in the wrong not Mark Towfiq and those who for more than a year and a half have made excuses for him and the Bahai institutions that protected him and have done nothing about his treachery while they pretend publicly to care oh so much about the freedom and libertry of the United States and West every time it is to their advantage to seduce the American public and political leaders for some sort of advantage or favor.... > >He did not "Campaign" He sent ONE message which is not therefore a >"Campaign". The message was sent to three private Bahai-only email lists. It was made public by a rare Bahai of conscience who sent me a copy stating he/she was sicken by what was happening on the back channels instead openly on news.groups, which Usenet group formation requires. For an indication of what must have the atmosphere when Mr. Towfiq posted his attack, please see the archives I have on my web site for bahai-discuss during the second vote: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm Mr. Sorenson knows all of this regarding Mr. Towfig's message which is available at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Graham@acemake.comREMOVEME wrote in message <54ELjDApB1y1EwIF@fragrant.demon.co.uk>... >In article <6qfif6$ev1$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, Fran Baker > writes >>Hi Jim, >> >>The problems with what Mark Towfiq did, in my opinion, are (1) he >>campaigned for a NO vote, which seems against the spirit >>of the Baha'i policy on voting (confirmed by the UHJ's statement >>on the vote) and > > >Here we go again.. The above expression seems to me quite unfair. It seems to attempt to suggest that anyone who would bring up the dishonest and underhanded attack committed by Mark Towfiq against the 157 people who legitimated voted YES for an unmoderated newsgroup the first time is somehow the person who is really in the wrong not Mark Towfiq and those who for more than a year and a half have made excuses for him and the Bahai institutions that protected him and have done nothing about his treachery while they pretend publicly to care oh so much about the freedom and libertry of the United States and West every time it is to their advantage to seduce the American public and political leaders for some sort of advantage or favor.... > >He did not "Campaign" He sent ONE message which is not therefore a >"Campaign". The message was sent to three private Bahai-only email lists. It was made public by a rare Bahai of conscience who sent me a copy stating he/she was sicken by what was happening on the back channels instead openly on news.groups, which Usenet group formation requires. For an indication of what must have the atmosphere when Mr. Towfiq posted his attack, please see the archives I have on my web site for bahai-discuss during the second vote: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm Mr. Sorenson knows all of this regarding Mr. Towfig's message which is available at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 3:12 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Appeal for dialogue II (was Re: Baha'i & Scientology) Roger Reini wrote in message <35d03586.93932430@news.newsguy.com>... >On Fri, 07 Aug 1998 16:58:28 -0700, Donald Zhang Osborn > wrote: > >>Fran Baker wrote: [Mark Towfiq] >>> The problems with what [*********] did, in my opinion, are (1) he >>> campaigned for a NO vote, which seems against the spirit >>> of the Baha'i policy on voting (confirmed by the UHJ's statement >>> on the vote) and . . . >> >>This is & was my reaction to his letter too. Apparently others >>reacted similarly, and so it was followed by a letter which, as I >>remember, was both a retraction & an apology (as such it really >>never became a campaign). It was also against Usenet guidelines >>to post part of a RFV in that way, though that was apparently not >>widely known among at the time. Though Mr. Towfiq attacked people privately he owed, and still owes, me and others a PUBLIC apology, which he has never made.... > >I recall seeing that letter, too. Unfortunately, I don't believe I >have a copy of it in my files; even if I did, I could not post it >because I lack permission to do so. But I would swear under oath that >I received it. Towfiq's attack can be read at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Note well, Mr. Towfiq, as a member of the BCCA, then participated in the attack on me during the SECOND interest poll for talk.religion.bahai.... > >As I recall, at one time it was not a violation of the Big 8 voting >process to solicit votes or discussion in that way, but times and >policies changed. The above comment is irrelevant to Towfiq. WHEN he used Bahai backchannels to circumvent discussion on news.groups it WAS a violation of the Big 8 voting procedure.... The BCCA then went on to interfere in the SECOND interest poll.... As I have stated, it remains to be seen how they will choose to interfer in the THIRD interest poll and whether or not the UHJ is secretly supporting, encouraging, and USING the BCCA to carry out what may be its own true agenda.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 8:19 AM Subject: murder of Dr. Jordan (was Re: What are you trying to do, Frederick?) Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ... > >Frederick, >To start out this post, I'd like to quote from something you posted to >another list: >"He has placed a message I wrote for a different context >on his website without my permission and despite the >fact that I have asked him repeatedly to remove it. I don't >believe the best interests of Islam are served well by such >tactics of antagonism. The Quran speaks highly of respectfor other >religions." You're referring to a very complex chain of events more than a year ago, and out of context, now and even then, I might add.... He is Afshin, a Muslim, who's site can be found at https://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/index.htm >Gee, this tactic sounds familiar. You don't like it when others do it to >you..............your tactics of antagonism do not serve the best interests >of Baha'i either. Not as simple as you make it out to be.... >Let me get straight to the point here. You have posted various accusations >against the Baha'is on numerous, non-Baha'i related newsgroups. And just the opposite can be said.... THEY have posted various accusations against.... You have >accused Baha'is of censorship, spread an ugly rumor about an event you have >no personal knowledge of I never claimed I had any knowledge of WHO murdered Dr. Daniel Jordan. I merely pointed out, and still do, that SEVERAL Bahais, unbeknowest to each other, and apparently independently, not from the same one source of as you call it "rumor," each reached the same spectulation: that the murder may have been an "'inside' job." That fact speaks volumes about what the real social atmosphere is like in Bahai circles. It is entirely consistent with the image documented so thoroughly on my web site under Controversial Documents and Juan Cole.... MANY people have been driven and hounded into either silence or right out of the glorious new dispensation by intolerance and fanaticism. You are criticizing me for pointing out that history is rife with examples of governments and religious organizations committing the most barbarous crimes and horrors when they reach such a stage.... Again, I have merely pointed out that the Bahai Faith, given the evidence, and none to the contrary, seems perhaps to have reached that point too. That is not a "rumor." That is my considered judgment. Others have come to the same conclusion or close to it.... , and other things to Iranian and Islamic >newsgroups. After what you did to my husband's private email to you, how >can you get upset that some Muslim did the exact same thing to you? You're confusing the order of events and are unaware of their complexity.... As I have already said recently, your ignoring the crime to which your husband's email referred.... It has just been established in a court of law that when a murder is involved an email can serve as evidence.... The criminal, according to current news reports, has received life in prison, where murderers belong.... I am perplexed by your continual attempts to hush this up and place the blame on me.... >This prompts me to ask you this. What are you attempting to do? Someone committed a heinous crime. Lo and behold, I read one day, in my mailbox, that several other people independent from me and apparently largely from one another speculated that the source of the crime might very well have been someone within the Bahai Faith. I attempted to share that possibly valuable information with others, including, perhaps, legal authorities duly constituted to judge such things given their superior knowledge of the crime. I believe, as a Bahai and a human being and a citizen, I believe, I have such a duty.... Why do you continue to attempt to sweep it aside and blame me? Is all of >this simply to get an unmoderated newsgroup? Do you really have the Baha'is >best interests at heart or are you simply trying to get revenge? Is what >Mark Towfig and other Baha'is did your newsgroup proposal bad enough to >justify all of this? The above questions move away from the issue of Jordan's murder. I would be happy, though, in another message to address them.... >Let me make clear that I believe there is censorship in the Faith as well, >but I just don't understand how your behavior is going to convince them to >change. I don't believe anything will convince the Bahai fanatics to vote in favor of talk.religion.bahai.... They've amply demonstrated that fact during the last year and a half.... I cannot allow their further threats of opposition to determine whether or not I express the dictates of my own conscience or live up to the duty I feel to point out to proper authorities the murder of a fellow human being by perhaps someone within the Bahai Faith.... Again, far from baseless speculation, it's the entire atmosphere of censorship and control that compels such worries for me and others because such a deed would consistent with everything else that seems to be happening within the Bahai Faith now and during the last decade and a half.... >Antagonistic tactics only get antagonistic results. You're neglecting that efforts to create talk.religion.bahai are the result of pervasive antagonism by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai to free speech and religious consicence.... If what you >really want is to get an unmoderated newsgroup, then start using the freedom >you already have more responsibly and for goodness. Unfortunately, this sounds like the pro-soc.religion.bahai Bahais who basically mean start thinking and acting like us.... >This is not hate mail. I am just trying to get you to see that you are >shooting yourself in the foot. Please take this post in the spirit it is >intended. When you post an unsubstantiated rumor about murder to Iranian >and Islamic newsgroups, you are just giving conservative Baha'is another >reason to oppose you. Muslims have as much right as anyone else to know that the Bahais may very well have their own dirty laundry.... I have always made it clear that the speculation that a Bahai murdered Daniel Jordan was just that. Often, though, crimes have been solved by just such speculations, to everyone's surprise, being investigated, turning up new evidence, or a new connection, that leads to the solving of the case. I find your and Bahais' adamant denunciation of this revelation disturbing.... Why are none of you concerned about the crime and justice? Baha'u'llah: "The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice." > >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 8:50 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Appeal for dialogue II (was Re: Baha'i & Scientology) Richard Schaut wrote in message ... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6qi7sn$r79@news3.newsguy.com>... >>Though Mr. Towfiq attacked people privately he owed, and still >>owes, me and others a PUBLIC apology, which he has never >>made.... > >One wonders how you define the word "attack", and how that definition >applies to anything Mr. Towfiq said about you and, somehow, doesn't apply to >your present remarks about him. Back once again to defend towfiqism? > > >>Towfiq's attack can be read at >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm > >I've read it. The above question remains very much unanswered. Defense of freedom is not a crime.... > >>Note well, Mr. Towfiq, as a member of the BCCA, then participated >>in the attack on me during the SECOND interest poll for >>talk.religion.bahai.... > >First of all, there simply is no evidence to support the claim that the BCCA >"attacked" anyone during the second interest poll. This is no more than >empty rhetoric. There is definitely evidence. It exists in my BCCA archives which show that Towfiq was actively a member of the BCCA and involved in the decision to continue attempting to undermine the interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm > >But, even if we presume that there was some sort of effort underway (an >assumption which is _not_ supported by any proferred evidence), https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm this >assertion is still false, unless you want to include anyone who was a member >of the BCCA when the second poll was taken. Unfortunately, that includes >almost every Baha'i who voted _for_ talk.religion.bahai. > >Hence it seems rather clear that whatever "facts" actually exist in this >saga, they are being woefully twisted to suit someone's agenda. It appears to me you and other pro-censorship Bahais are "twisting" them to suit yours.... This >wouldn't be quite so bad if it didn't involve a number of slanderous >allegations about people's conduct and intentions. Slander? The evidence exists proving that Mr. Towfiq deprived 157 people of their freedom of religious conscience and speech, condoned, apparently, by Bahai institutions which have sat by in silence, pretending always to revere democracy and freedom, when they want to use free institutions for their own purposes, while actually always trashing such values in private Bahai-only meetings: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm As it is, I find Mr. >Glaysher's attempts in this regard to be absolutely disgusting. What I find "disgusting" is that once in ever four or five months you seize lurking here only to bash others or talk.religion.bahai while intolerantly asserting the virtue of your own views.... Please read and study the last four paragraphs of the FAQ. In my opinion, they highly typify your approach: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm If anyone >owes anybody any form of appology, here, it's Mr. Glaysher, and no one else. It does not surprise me that you would say this since you voted NO the first time, perhaps acting on Mr. Towfiq's "advice." > > >Regards, >Rick Schaut Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 9:02 AM Subject: murder of Jordan (was Re: Baha'i & Scientology) The little quote marks ">" aren't going in here for some reason so I'll answer above the message. Unfortunately, I am then not the only "pyschotic" Bahai since several other people, which you don't address or explain, reached the same nagging, worrisome speculation, i.e., as one of them put it, not I, that the murder of Dr. Jordan may have been an "inside job." This speculation seems to me entirely congruent with the atmosphere of control and censorship in the Bahai Faith that others have stated began to worsen shortly after Jordan's murder in 1982, sometime in the mid-eighties. Your tecnique here seems to me to discussed thoroughly in the last four paragraphs of the FAQ. Please read and study them: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ clarence sevdy wrote in message <11270-35CCADB1-14@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... Frederick Glaysher's Statement about the death of Dan Jordan being in any way connected to the administrators of the Baha'is is the sickest damn thing i have read from F.G. Dan was loved & respected at all levels both in and outside Baha"i. Dan's murder was a blow to all. There was a problem with speculation by many that fanatical Muslims had killed him, I even entertained this idea myself for a while. The National got all information avail. from law enforcement and published it ASAP. Unfortunately, while travelling ,Dan was murdered in NYC , his body transported to Con. and left in a dumpster, all money credit cards etc . were stolen . This was a crime by criminals. I personaly would like to see the killers brought to justice. To bring this up after 16 years ,and to blame those closest to Dan for his death is despicable ,callous, calclulatedly cynical,and as far as I'm concerned downright PSYCHOTIC. Glaysher this is off topic for ARS , and inapropriate behaviour anywhere. I have come to the conclusion that you are a classic true Paranoid......PLEASE SEEK HELP!!!!!!!!! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 9:23 AM To: Fran Baker Cc: Ron House Subject: Re: Proponents Fran, Sorry it's taken me a day or two to respond. Meant to do so earlier and then forgot. >The very same. His paternal grandmother was Dorothy Baker. Thanks for your recent messages on arb. It's important Frank establish a prescence there too or people will oppose his being a proponent. I'm going to post a note about Ron House agreeing to be a proponent again. That should create about a week of discussion.... And then probably we'd better mention the two of you as soon as possible. People are expecting the RFD (Request For Discussion) to be posted on August 28th. We really should dust off the last RFD on arb for a few weeks before actually posting it to news.announce.newgroups >When were you and your wife in Illinois? Let's see, 1982-1990, then '92-'94.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 9:28 AM Subject: Ron House agrees to be proponent Ron House has agreed to be a proponent for the third interest poll. Many will remember Ron was a proponent for the second poll too. Thanks Ron! You're a brave soul!! You must have some tough, hardy Australian pioneers in your background! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 9:34 AM To: Ron House Subject: proponents Just want to mention the Bakers are working on enlisting another highly visible Bahai who ought to bring in a lot of votes as a proponent. We'll have to wait awhile and see. Frank Baker and his family connection ought to have a positive influence in his own way providing he gets involved.... Fred ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:07 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: news release Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I've contact about a dozen newspapers including the ones > below with the attached message. It seems to me talking > with the conservatives is counterproductive.... Any local > papers on your side of world you might think of? > Hi Fred, I am not sure writing to newspapers is the best way to go. They are too 'immediate' to have much of an impact, but the appearance of an article gives the fundies an excuse to attack us (going behind news.groups' back - as if they haven't, but that's another story). I would preper to stay online, I think. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:18 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology Frederick Glaysher wrote: > In defense, since a number of Bahais have posted to > alt.religion.scientology attempting to characterize me in a negative > light... I would have to regard such action as deplorable. Scientologists do some very nasty things to people who get on their gander, and the above surely puts Fred at risk. However much they disagree with him, they surely shouldn't recklessly endanger him like this. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:26 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] My censored posting to SRB - update My message (previously bounced), which I reposted here, has now appeared on soc.religion.bahai, after my appeal to a different moderator. It appears that the problem is the capriciousness and unsuitability of particular moderators, not a concerted plan by the lot of them. (Of course, this is an unavoidable consequence of moderation, so it doesn't lessen the need for TRB.) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:56 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] murder of Dr. Jordan (was Re: What are you trying to do, Frederick?) Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ... > > > >This is not hate mail. I am just trying to get you to see that you are > >shooting yourself in the foot. Please take this post in the spirit it is > >intended. When you post an unsubstantiated rumor about murder to Iranian > >and Islamic newsgroups, you are just giving conservative Baha'is another > >reason to oppose you. > > Muslims have as much right as anyone else to know that the > Bahais may very well have their own dirty laundry.... I have always > made it clear that the speculation that a Bahai murdered Daniel Jordan > was just that. I can't agree with you here, Fred. The Iranian so-called Muslims have no interest in truth and are simply looking for more excuses to commit murder. For God's sake, keep this whole thing away from them. You are not giving them facts with which to come to a genuine moral judgement, you are giving them a loaded gun to point at another victim. This is serious, Fred, and we can't afford to put real people's lives at risk. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 6:46 AM Subject: REPOST - To UHJ July 24, 1998 -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 7:00 AM Subject: Re: Appeal for dialogue II (was Re: Baha'i & Scientology) What I find "disgusting" is that once in ever four or five months you cease lurking here only to bash others or talk.religion.bahai while intolerantly asserting the virtue of your own views.... Please read and study the last four paragraphs of the FAQ. In my opinion, they highly typify your approach: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: Juan Cole page annotated I've slightly annotated the Juan Cole page on my web site to help give people an idea of the contents of the messages. Though not a complete index, I hope this helps a little.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 8:10 AM Subject: 19 subscribers on bahai-faith There are currently 19 subscribers on bahai-faith: bintyaya@aol.com cscheide@jps.net FG@hotmail.com ghouse@ocs1.ocs.mq.edu.au harris632@aol.com house@usq.edu.au jbork@ssm-i.com jeffery.decker@usa.net laaeterna@aol.com leonid@magnet.at mbkafes@bestweb.net mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca mnachreiner@acsoftware.com mrscotty@mninter.net peiss@dialup.nacamar.de shinsato@inxight.com stephenb@polarnet.ca tuffguy@tm.net.my whitbrandt@mailcity.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 8:22 AM Subject: FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com August 10, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome and repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 10:08 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: FAQ Forgive the immediate repost on this FAQ. It just occurred to me I should add some mention of using dejanews.com and reference.com for reading alt.religion.bahai and posting to it. Details below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com August 10, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities, including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access alt.religion.bahai. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 2:30 PM To: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] FAQ fyi Hope you don't mind my using the quotation from you at the end of this. It seems to fit in so well with the others.... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] FAQ >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for >Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com >August 10, 1998 >This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc >makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* >hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. >Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to >bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email >access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. > >Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com >or www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting >capabilities, including free email accounts, for people who can't >directly access alt.religion.bahai. > >Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or >repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of >talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup >on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. > >Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" > >ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy >of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to >access talk.religion.bahai. > >Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" > >ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai >would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list >bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. > >Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" > >ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are >continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to >soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and >religious conscience. > >ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] > >Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" > >ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place >here] > >Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and >conscience?" > >ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for >other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and >the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the >Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was >submitted to news.announce.newgroups. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm > >Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the >Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to >three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO >against talk.religion.bahai. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm > >March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of >talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in >effect more than a year and a half later. >March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to >691 NO. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm > >Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates >alt.religion.bahai. >October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases >a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated >newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm > >November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly >favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai >passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher >of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss >and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and >correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA >committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases >a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of >Usenet interest polling: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm > >January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was >submitted. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm > >February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES >to 65 NO. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm > >May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher >that contain his signature file. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other >issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the >Web site below. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >WEB SITE: >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >MAILING LIST: >bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription >& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: > >Donald Zhang Osborn: >"A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue >for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x >Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a >non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions >for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. >As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of >evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment >(understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and >that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that >virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of >environments)." > >Frederick Glaysher: >"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by >many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about >an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to >the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, >ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their >messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them >through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up >on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action >of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to >talk.religion.bahai." > >More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages >explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais >NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make >them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with >censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by >suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who >believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai >community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily >support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote >YES. > >Ron House: >"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that >there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and >others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so >much he says something intemperate, then point out >how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how >nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this >technique works, so I've been making a conscious >effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the >dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he >invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they >can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did >this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. >At any other time, they would overlook faults, as >Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode >they go for the jugular. Very sad." > >Fran Baker: >"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common >technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially >effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both >sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating >technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is >to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat >up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard >to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal >relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group >acts this way. Very scary." > >Dr. Juan Cole: >"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional >reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the >more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom >they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to >silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to >depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any >victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible >and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect >racket. > >"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously >successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining >Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, >either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that >go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm > > > > > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology Graham Sorenson wrote in message <0RMDZEAhMzz1EwDG@fragrant.demon.co.uk>... >In article <6qn3fq$5ea$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, Fran Baker > writes >>"Frederick Glaysher" writes: >> >>>Graham@acemake.comREMOVEME wrote in message >>><54ELjDApB1y1EwIF@fragrant.demon.co.uk>... >>>>In article <6qfif6$ev1$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, Fran Baker >>>> writes >>>>>Hi Jim, >>>>> >>>>>The problems with what Mark Towfiq did, in my opinion, are (1) he >>>>>campaigned for a NO vote, which seems against the spirit >>>>>of the Baha'i policy on voting (confirmed by the UHJ's statement >>>>>on the vote) and >>>> >>>> >>>>Here we go again.. >> >>I did not see this response to my posting for some reason, but >>I would like to respond to the following snippet that Fred cited: >> >>>> >>>>He did not "Campaign" He sent ONE message which is not therefore a >>>>"Campaign". >> >> >>It is my understanding that if someone posted something like this-- >> >> You should vote for So-and-so for LSA or public office or >> you should vote for such-and-such proposition on the state >> ballot. You should do so for these reasons, and here is >> exactly how to do it (e.g., check "YES" on the state ballot). >> >>on SRB or said as much in a Baha'i gathering that this would be >>considered campaigning in the sense frowned upon or disallowed >>in the Faith. Am I wrong? This is precisely what Mark did. >>His doing so is water under the bridge, and I don't know him and >>he is probably a fine fellow, but this was something he, as a >>Baha'i, probably should not have done. >> >>--Fran >> >Sorry Fran.. I will say again ONE message is _not_ a campaign. > >Collins Dictionary says "Campaign" Noun, 1. Series of co-ordinated >activities for some purpose, e.g. poliitical, or military. > >So.. There was no "series". Nothing was "co-ordinated". Therefore it was >not a "campaign". > >What it was, was a mistake. This mistake was admitted to and withdrawn. > >Hope this clarifies it. >-- >Graham Sorenson One message to THREE private Bahai-only mailing lists.... It took nearly a year for the truth that it was THREE not one group to which he had posted the message to come out accidentally.... THAT is a campaign, in my opinion.... One Mr. Sorenson and other Bahais haved relentlessly defended ever since the very moment it became known.... It seems to me Juan Cole's comments at the end of the new FAQ apply well to this too.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 2:46 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: The apology for soliciting votes Roger, Congratulations on finding the much acclaimed message.... Please email Mark Towfiq and ask him to post it himself to alt.religion.bahai. You can reach him at the address for the BCCA. If he's sincere about apologizing, I don't see why he should object. It would do a lot to help clear away the past now before the third interest poll begins in a few weeks. Given his undermining a legitimate method of voting in a very non-Bahai way, as Fran Baker points out elsewhere, it's the least he could do.... I certainly can't accept any second-handed hearsay about the message.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Roger Reini wrote in message <35d11f44.7516163@news.newsguy.com>... >After searching my records, I was surprised to discover the note which >apologized for soliciting No votes on the first talk.religion.bahai >proposal. According to the date stamp, it was mailed March 11, 1997, >THE DAY AFTER the original solicitation went out. > >I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to post it here, since it >was sent to a Baha'i-only mailing list. However, I can paraphrase and >summarize the first two paragraphs: > >The first paragraph discussed the Usenet voting process and how it >works. > >The second said that the author was unaware that "under more recent >rules", the solicitation of votes was frowned upon, and he offered his >apologies to the readers "for putting them in any uncomfortable >situation." He then explained that interested parties could find the >CFV in news.groups or soc.religion.bahai. > >The other two paragraphs are not germane to the issue at hand, so I >won't summarize them here. > >As I see it, the author realized that his initial solicitation was in >error and apologized for it shortly thereafter, not to mention >providing corrective action. If this was a campaign, then it couldn't >have had much impact. Even if it did, then the second vote (which >contained no such activity) made up for it. > >Let's not flog this dead horse any more, and let's get back to >discussing the issues. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 3:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: [bahai-faith] FAQ Yes, absolutely, Fred; you may use those paras. Juan ---------- From: dellyusa[SMTP:dellyusa@netscape.net] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 7:49 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] subscribe ____________________________________________________________________ More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at https://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: LaAeterna@aol.com[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 7:54 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Possibility of third Manifestation For a discussion of the possible appearance of a third Manifestation and relevant quotes and thoughts, a website has been established which you can access at: https://www.greatestname.com. Hope it is of interest to some of you. Nancy ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:35 AM To: dellyusa@netscape.net Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] subscribe To subscribe via email, you need to send your message following the instructions at the end of my signature file for web subscription or at the end of the forwarded message you "cc"-ed to the list. If you have any trouble, email me directly and I'll add manually. Welcome! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: dellyusa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 7:51 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] subscribe > > >____________________________________________________________________ >More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at https://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:44 AM To: George Subject: Re: Have we truly become this stupid? George, something's going wrong in hyperspace or whatever with your messages. Second one this morning from yesterday. You might want to repost -----Original Message----- From: George Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Have we truly become this stupid? > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:46 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Fw: More often than not... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 12:16 PM Subject: More often than not... > >Donald Zhang Osborn writes: > > > >>I think more often than not, it is not that people ignore >>others' opinions, but disagree and choose not to engage >>in argumentation; > >I think more often than not it is that people respond to >other's opinions with poor quality argumentation, specifically, >pat answers that satisfy them in their own certainty but fail >to convince many others. This is what happens when you spout >a religious salespitch or sound bit rather than really listening >to either yourself or your critic. Baha'i "teaching," like >other conversion-driven conversation, usually includes a "teacher" >with a closed mind and a "pupil" who suffers fools gladly. > >--Fran >"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" >--a bumper sticker > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:56 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i & Scientology -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i & Scientology >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Graham@acemake.comREMOVEME wrote in message > >> >He did not "Campaign" He sent ONE message which is not therefore a >> >"Campaign". >> >> The message was sent to three private Bahai-only email lists. It >> was made public by a rare Bahai of conscience who sent me a >> copy stating he/she was sicken by what was happening on the >> back channels instead openly on news.groups, > >Sorry to quibble about one word: I don't accept that >Baha'is of conscience are rare. Many (perhaps half the >total membership) are inactive, more (like one friend of >mine) are active out of devotion but are in misery with >what they see, and many more don't know the truth >because of the tight information control of the >administration. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:10 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Appeal to lay this "issue" to rest (was Re: Baha'i & ...) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35CF7B22.4883@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... Osborn wrote: >IMHO, Graham is correct that there was no "campaign," and that Fran is >correct -- but needs a word other than "campaigning" -- that partisan >appeals would seem to be like partisan politics, which is forbidden in >the Baha'i Faith. Campaign is the right word.... > >FG>One message to THREE private Bahai-only mailing lists.... It took >>nearly a year for the truth that it was THREE not one group to which >>he had posted the message to come out accidentally.... > >I don't recall the time frame exactly, but had the impression that >someone brought up that the message was posted on three lists fairly >soon after the event. Not at all the case. Definitely not for an entire year and only then because someone new to the discussion let it slip out.... > >FG>THAT is a campaign, in my opinion.... One Mr. Sorenson and >>other Bahais haved relentlessly defended ever since the very >>moment it became known.... >[snip] > >The notion that there was a "campaign" is belied by the info >provided by Roger in his posting today entitled "The apology for >soliciting votes" (the apology/retraction was posted the day >after the appeal for no votes). Unacceptable second claims.... I don't think that Graham or >anyone else has ever "defended," relentlessly or otherwise, the >one appeal for no votes (nor dor that matter did anyone defend >the appeal(s?) for yes votes that appeared on one or more >newsgroups before the first poll). On the contrary, just about >everyone has said that it was inappropriate and unfortunate. In essence, all of you have defended towfiqism right along and the record on dejanews.com and my archive is there to substantiate my assertion that you have.... > >I see no benefit to bringing this up repeatedly. Can we finally >lay this issue to rest? It can only get in the way of discussion >of more important and current issues: e.g., teachings of the >Baha'i faith, and even the possible formation of t.r.b. Now you want to sweep it under the rug again? Only Towfiq himself posting where the damage was done can lay the issue to rest.... The first interest poll would have passed had he not whipped Bahais up into a frenzy with his message.... That is a fact that should not be neglected nor ignored.... > >Hope this helps... It's only more of the usual.... > >DZO You can show your sincerity by emailing Towfiq at the BCCA and asking him to post to alt.religion.bahai his supposed earlier retraction, if it ever existed, and state unambiguously that he is not now actively working on other strategems to defeat the third interest poll.... If you don't have the email address, you can get it off my archived BCCA messages: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/BCCA.txt Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:16 AM Subject: Re: Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology John Noland wrote in message <4C2C312E314AF2C2.26AD418D6D03884E.9E4D2EACE5885C78@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >Frederick Glaysher responded to my message via e-mail as follows. > >>Please post this to a Public Forum and I will read it there... Please >>do not send private e-mail to me again... > >With my initial response I did as is customary, I posted this message >to the newsgroup and e-mail in response to Frederick Glaysher's post. >He should be able to see that was the case by looking at the header of >the e-mail. Doing this is considered courteous, as it ensures that the >interested party doesn't miss a note as a result of propagation errors. I don't consider it "courteous" when the messages come from Bahais of a fundamentalist mindset and have every right to ask them to desist from emailing me directly. For samples of the kind of messages some of them have inflicted on me, please see https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:23 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: The apology for soliciting votes Richard Schaut wrote in message ... [deleted] Please read and study the last four or five paragraphs of the FAQ.... Speaking humorously as a former tutor, once you have thoroughly mastered the material, write a five paragraph theme, well organized, addressing the Bahai technique of public rhetoric.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:40 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology mtr@ottawa.com wrote in message <6qnf18$995$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6qi69a$qmj@news3.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >>> Can you supply evidence of this? For example, can you supply a message you >>> submitted which was bounced, complete with the moderator's note as to why >>> it was bounced? Your web page is incredibly self-serving and one-sided -- as >>> a source of information it is about as useful as https://www.scientology.org. > >> Sure, here's a link to such a message: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >Apparently "reading comprehension" isn't a skill you were taught. To clarify: >I want the *entire text* of *one* message which *you* submitted. I then want >the *entire text* of *one* message from an SRB moderator explaining why it was >bounced. That message referred to above comes from the page of over twenty other censored messages you might look at if that doesn't meet the requirements you're looking for. Incidentally, I never said I have proof that Dr. Daniel Jordan was murdered by someone inside the Bahai Faith. What I stated was that I and others independently reached the same speculation because of the fear and censorship that are common in Bahai circles, representative of the overall atmosphere that persists.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:48 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: coproponents It seems to me like the right moment to mention you and your husband as proponents. I have this nagging worry, though, that no one has heard anything from him and hence the reaction will be "who's he?" Let me know what to do.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:50 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Fw: Baha'i & Scientology -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i & Scientology >"Frederick Glaysher" writes: > >>Graham@acemake.comREMOVEME wrote in message >><54ELjDApB1y1EwIF@fragrant.demon.co.uk>... >>>In article <6qfif6$ev1$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, Fran Baker >>> writes >>>>Hi Jim, >>>> >>>>The problems with what Mark Towfiq did, in my opinion, are (1) he >>>>campaigned for a NO vote, which seems against the spirit >>>>of the Baha'i policy on voting (confirmed by the UHJ's statement >>>>on the vote) and >>> >>> >>>Here we go again.. > >I did not see this response to my posting for some reason, but >I would like to respond to the following snippet that Fred cited: > >>> >>>He did not "Campaign" He sent ONE message which is not therefore a >>>"Campaign". > > >It is my understanding that if someone posted something like this-- > > You should vote for So-and-so for LSA or public office or > you should vote for such-and-such proposition on the state > ballot. You should do so for these reasons, and here is > exactly how to do it (e.g., check "YES" on the state ballot). > >on SRB or said as much in a Baha'i gathering that this would be >considered campaigning in the sense frowned upon or disallowed >in the Faith. Am I wrong? This is precisely what Mark did. >His doing so is water under the bridge, and I don't know him and >he is probably a fine fellow, but this was something he, as a >Baha'i, probably should not have done. > >--Fran > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:51 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Fw: fw Ron House Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:43 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House Rejected by the Moderator: soc.religion.bahai > > >>>Suzanne Gerstner wrote: >>> >>>> First I'd like to say something though. Personally, the subject line: >>>> "Baha'i Wives to Obey Husbands" bothers me tremendously because it's >>>> very misleading, so to balance it, I've changed it to say roughly the >>>> opposite. :-) Taken out of context the first sounds very "old world >>>> order". It gives the wrong impression about the principles of the >>>> Baha'i Faith. There are people who know nothing of the Baha'i teachings >>>> on the family, consultation or the equality of the sexes who could draw >>>> a wrong conclusion from this subject line without ever really >>>> investigating further. > >The mentality expressed here, that of dressing up Baha'i tenets and history >for consumption by potential Baha'i converts (often to the point of >misrepresenting and downright lying) is one of the cancers in the body >of the Faith. It is also harmful to the intellectual and moral health of >the individuals who engage in it, to use another phrase, it is bad for >the soul. It also tends, in my observation, to seep into other part of >one's life. It is ironic to think on Bahaullah's (I think it was his) >warning about not trusting an atheist because someone who could lie about >god could lie about other things. Just another Baha'i irony. >The other poison is the concept and treatment of "covenant breakers." >Between the two (putting on a good face to get converts and declaring/reviling >covenenant breakers), it has to make you wonder just what tortured >relationship the Baha'i Faith has with the ideas of truth and human >brotherhood. > >--Fran (<---member of an obsolete religion that does not, with very rare >exception, convert or excommunicate.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:55 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 3rd RFD 2nd RFD: Talk.Religion.Bahai Jan 12, 1998 Path: szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnpla net.com!news .bbnplanet.com!data.ramona.vix.com!vixie!news.isc.org!bounce-back From: "Frederick Glaysher" Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,so c.rights.human,so c.culture.israel Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai Followup-To: news.groups Message-ID: <884617119.9751@isc.org> Approved: newgroups-request@isc.org Archive-Name: talk.religion.bahai Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:58:39 GMT Lines: 172 Xref: szdc news.announce.newgroups:2701 news.groups:114947 alt.religion.bahai:4571 talk.religion.misc:158814 soc.rights.human:32138 soc.culture.israel:94463 REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. CHANGES from previous RFD: The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahaiDiscussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. >From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated newsgroup. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered by all: "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." (Message-ID: > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Chris Manvell Proponent: Ron House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Homepage: Bahai: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 8:05 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Rough draft RFD for third interest poll REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. >From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated newsgroup. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered by all: "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." (Message-ID: > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 11:45 AM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com Subject: [Fwd: coproponents] <> Frank, what do you think? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 3:20 PM To: George & Marlena Subject: Re: Have we truly become this stupid? Don't mention it. I am interested, though, as others are, in hearing from you.... You often add a much needed perspective on things. -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 12:09 PM Subject: Re: Have we truly become this stupid? >My last post seems to have succeeded. I think. >Thanks for the interest. >George > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 3:28 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: 3rd proponent - Fran Baker Fran Baker has kindly accepted to become the third proponent of talk.religion.bahai. I'm grateful to her for her bravery and outspoken opinions.... There's discussion going on that a fourth proponent may step forward here shortly.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Appeal for dialogue, not rhetoric (was Re: Re(2): Baha'i & Scientology) What I shall call the constant necessity of referring back to the censorship imposed by srb is a result of their own inescapable actions.... As well as their and others' use of the Bahai technique of discussion.... You might find it useful too to refer to the end of the FAQ: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm You seem to suggest by mentioning "hard working, devoted followers" being "dragged through the mud" that people in favor of talk.religion.bahai were doing the dragging and entirely at fault while the devoted followers of Baha'u'llah were angels.... Permit me to refer you again to the FAQ since you don't seem to be addressing any of the real issues at the moment: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm I found and find it depressing that so few Bahais have any respect for Abdu'l-Baha's words on freedom of speech and religious conscience, but I take heart in trusting in Baha'u'llah to enlighten them in long run and not to leave them to such a stifling interpretation of his Revelation.... Sorry to hear about your mental problems. Actually, though, it's a relief to know about them because I was worried that you really never had any genuine interest in talk.religion.bahai since you seemed to disappear just when the climate was improving for passing talk.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Chris Manvell wrote in message <7ytCvDAik+z1EwRO@breacais.demon.co.uk>... >In article <35CB88A5.4A13@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, Donald Zhang Osborn > wrote >[snipped as we have all seen it before]. > >During the second attempt to create TRB, there were a number of people >who consistently and constantly wrote in support of the proposed group, >people like Donald and Roger. But, the whole process was characterised >by what we call fire brigade action, people like Donald and Roger, and >myself, constantly responding to people who had responded to allegations >of conspiracy and attacks and schism. Personally, I found this so >totally draining that now people are talking about a 3rd RDF I really do >not wish to know. I shall not be subscribing to news.groups during the >consultation. It is only people like Roger and Donald that keep me >subscribed to ARB. However, if this constant harping backwards to >previous polls continues, even their dedication will no longer appear on >my screen. > >The second period of discussion went very well to start with and I >received many e-mails of support. I really believed that all the old >cookies had finally been laid to rest (some mixed metaphor there!). >However, this state of euphoria came to an abrupt end and those who had >originally been supportive began to demand that I as one co-proponent in >three do something about it. Frankly, I felt totally unable to do >anything of the sort. In fact I went into a spiritual and mental decline >that led to mild depression and in the end, thoroughly burnt out trying >to carry the process forward, I just gave up (many of you will have >noticed how I stopped posting some time in December). I just thank God >that I have a very supportive wife who helped me through this period of >utter defeat. It felt like trying to swim with lead weights attached to >one's feet and it took some six months to recover from the experience -- >in fact I still feel a lack of enthusiasm for all things Usenet. > >Anyway, I feel that I cannot go through such a debilitating process >again -- it is not good for one's soul and I have other spiritual >battles to fight and life is too short. So, as soon as I see that the >1st RFD is out I shall retire gracefully into my cocoon and set up a >series of kill files (I still want to follow other discussions on ARB if >there are any). Thus I shall not see peoples' names being dragged >through the mud and hard working, devoted followers of Baha'u'llah being >lampooned. Thus I shall neither support nor attack the proposal, shall >not be damned by association and shall not relive what was one of the >more depressing moments of my life. > >I wish you all well and bid you au revoir. > >Chris. >-- >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 >Personal Web site: >Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe): > >Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 6:36 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Appeal to lay this "issue" to rest (was Re: Baha'i & ...) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35D0A7F6.1F8A@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Frederick, all of this seems to me to be an unnecessary distraction >from what I thought to be your primary interest, the possible creation >of t.r.b. Please, heed what people are writing: drop this issue, and >note that a number of people are expressing an interest in t.r.b. >despite disagreement with you on points like this. IMHO, setting >aside such old disagreements about the first interest poll in March >1997 and rather focusing on the positive aspects of possible creation >of a t.r.b. would be much more likely to generate sufficient support >for its creation. In other terms, the process preceding the second >poll is a better model to work from. You fail to answer any of my observations, as usual.... You seem here to cast aspersions as well.... Please read the last four or five paragraphs of the FAQ, indeed study them, and attempt to break out the pattern of blaming anyone who doesn't agree with you and the hardline Bahai mentality.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 6:57 AM Subject: Re: 3rd proponent - Fran Baker Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35D0DA7E.30E@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote (in part): >> There's discussion going on that a fourth proponent may step forward >> here shortly.... > >At a couple of points in time, Frederick informally brought up on >a.r.b. the possibility of my participating as a proponent of t.r.b. >Although I'm sure I've been off the list of possibilities for a while, >I would, only for the sake of closure on this, respectfully decline. Thanks, Donald. It's for the best. A number of Bahais like yourself just wouldn't make good proponents having never demonstrated genuine interest in and commitment to religious freedom of conscience and speech.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:10 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Campaigning Chris Manvell wrote in message ... >In article <6qq4jc$s7n$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, Fran Baker > wrote >>Thank you for your very informative and to-the-point answer. I do still >>think, as I said in my original post on this, that Mark violated the >>spirit of the Baha'i law on campaigning and partisanship. As a non- >>Baha'i somewhat familiar with Baha'i values, it surprised me. > >Dear Fran, > >If Mark intentionally tried to start a campaign against TRB, I would >agree with you. However, neither you nor I nor anyone else on this >group or any other, knows what was in Mark's mind at the time and to >make out that one does is to delude ourselves. It has often been observed that modern jurisprudence has tended to judge too much what is in the criminal's mind neglecting the time honored approach of concentrating on his actions.... Personally, I do think >he made a mistake in the heat of the moment and went against the spirit >of the Baha'i teachings, but he made amends by apologising and >retracting his message almost immediately so _I'm_ not going to lose any >sleep over it. All hearsay.... There is no evidence he ever apologizied and isn't presently active on bahai-discuss or elsewhere to undermine and also defeat trb this third time.... What concerns me is that the whole incident has been >allowed to rumble on like a festering sore long after it should have >been forgotten. Injustice is known to do that. Honest and sincere people attempt to address the fundamental issues in order to resolve them. Bahais have never attempted to do that by continuing to justify and excuse his actions. Please read the end of the FAQ since it applies well to this message: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Anyway, beams and motes come to mind -- before we >condemn the man for a mistake maybe we should look to our own errors; >certainly I am so far from perfect that to judge another would be >arrogance personified. This is merely attempting to change the subject. A tactic long noticed by observers of the Bahai technique of discussion.... It also suggests anyone who would think otherwise is "arrogance personified" instead of actually addressing the real issue of Towfiq's kniving on private Bahai-only mailing lists to deprive others of freedom of speech.... > >Anyway, I feel that this has gone on long enough and I am only >perpetuating an argument that, as I said, should long ago have been >allowed to rest. There are enough problems in the world without making >even more. It is a problem that long ago, if Bahais really cared about honesty and truth, should have, and would have, been genuinely addressed.... > >With love, > >Chris. >-- >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 >Personal Web site: >Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe): > >Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: Private Bahai-only mailing lists I'd like to suggest that the private Bahai-only mailing lists should be monitored, starting as soon as possible, and throughout the entire interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. Since they're controlled by the Bahai Computer and Communication Association (BCCA), which has twice interferred in the past votes, there's no reason to imagine they're not going to attempt something again. Evidence of this interference can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/BCCA.txt The above file also documents, by the way, the hardline mentality the BCCA demonstrated in basically throwing me off their lists last fall precisely when a very favorable climate among Bahais in support of trb was developing.... Obviously, for the monitoring to be credible, it would have to be done by Bahais who haven't been defenders and spokesmen for soc.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:23 AM Subject: Re: The apology for soliciting votes https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:25 AM Subject: Re: What constitutes acceptable voting? I haven't noticed a mention yet of news.announce.newgroups and news.groups Both newsgroups will have all the info on them you're looking for.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:46 AM To: Frank Baker Subject: Re: coproponents Frank, I've posted a message welcoming Fran and suggesting perhaps someone else will soon become a proponent too. I'm not sure watching srb will help you.... You understand everything there is highly filtered? There are other ways of reading and posting to arb other than through a NNTP server at an institution: www.dejanews.com offers a free email account along with access to all newsgroups including alt.religion.bahai. Www.newsguy.com offers reading and posting, which is what I usually use. I've lived in a couple of places in Illinois, out West and Japan.... Small world, really.... Thanks for your courage.... You're going to need it.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Frank Baker To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Fran Baker ; Frank Baker Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 3:04 PM Subject: Re: coproponents > >Fred: > >First, the TRB coproponents issue: > I recognize that my "lack of a presence" on the newsgroups is an > issue in this regard. With an eye toward establishing that presence, > I have recently started watching SRB and will post when I can do so > sincerely and in genuine interest. I have tried to establish a link > to ARB, but with poor success so far. I have, however, found out who > to contact to ask the University to subscribe to the newsgroup; if > they will do that, then I will be able to participate. > > Thus I suggest that you use your discretion WRT the co-proponents > announcement. > 1) Fran can serve as a proponent without me. > 2) I am still happy to be listed as a co-proponent, but you know > the consequences of using an unknown proponent better than I do. > 3) You could go ahead with (1) then, once I establish contact with > ARB and make my presence known, it may still be reasonable to > announce me as another proponent. > >Second, regarding your sojourn in Illinois and possibly knowing each >other: > Yes, I have been active in the Illinois Baha'i community for many > years. My parents first moved to Champaign from Ohio when I was > about 4 (in the early '50s). And your wife is correct that > Dorothy Baker is my grandmother. > > As for the years you were in the state: From 1980 to '85, I was in > southern Illinois (Oblong) and western Illinois (Kinderhook, south > of Quincy). I have been back in Champaign-Urbana since '86. > > Where did you live when you were in Illinois? What is your wife's > name? (And was it the same then as now?) Did you guys ever attend > Heartland Baha'i School? (I helped found the school, though I have > not been active with it since about '91.) > >Regards, >-- Frank > > >At 10:45 AM 8/11/98 -0500, Fran Baker wrote: >> >>Frank, what do you think? >> >>From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>To: "Fran Baker" >>Subject: coproponents >>Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:48:59 -0400 >> >>It seems to me like the right moment to mention >>you and your husband as proponents. I have this >>nagging worry, though, that no one has heard anything >>from him and hence the reaction will be "who's he?" >> >>Let me know what to do.... >> >>Fred >> >> > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:52 AM To: dellyusa@netscape.net Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] subscribe I peeked in this morning at the managing list site to notice you're not subscribed yet. Perhaps you're continuing to have trouble with it. Send a message to address below: To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The robot will send you back instructions. Good luck! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: dellyusa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 7:51 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] subscribe > > >____________________________________________________________________ >More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at https://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: Mulligan, Tim[SMTP:TMulligan@Central.UH.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 3:12 PM To: 'FG@hotmail.com' Subject: Walk away Fred, Why don't you just walk away from the Baha'I Faith? I remember last year, when I was (very briefly) a Baha'I, I resented your posts immensely. Now that I'm no longer a Baha'I, I wonder why you don't do yourself a favor and give it a rest. I found, after just a month and a half of membership in the Baha'I Faith, that this religion resembled AmWay in many ways. There was an incredible focus on increasing numbers. At every feast, I constantly heard that hackneyed phrase "entry by troops" batted around by wide-eyed fanatics. And almost zero attention was paid to the spiritual formation of Baha'is. At this point, I have to agree with Krishnamurti. "Truth is a pathless land." Walk away. Tim Tmulligan@central.uh.edu ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 7:22 AM To: Mulligan, Tim Subject: Re: Walk away I'd appreciate it if you'd please post your original of this message to alt.religion.bahai. I would think it would be of interest to Bahais and non-Bahais, as your other posts there yesterday must be too. Fundamentalist Bahais, you see, usually succeed in driving off most people still capable of thinking for themselves. For others to know that is important.... It would also give me the opportunity to answer your message publicly. Best wishes, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Mulligan, Tim To: 'FG@hotmail.com' Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 3:12 PM Subject: Walk away >Fred, > > Why don't you just walk away from the Baha'I Faith? > > I remember last year, when I was (very briefly) a Baha'I, I resented >your posts immensely. Now that I'm no longer a Baha'I, I wonder why you >don't do yourself a favor and give it a rest. > > I found, after just a month and a half of membership in the Baha'I >Faith, that this religion resembled AmWay in many ways. There was an >incredible focus on increasing numbers. At every feast, I constantly heard >that hackneyed phrase "entry by troops" batted around by wide-eyed fanatics. >And almost zero attention was paid to the spiritual formation of Baha'is. > > At this point, I have to agree with Krishnamurti. "Truth is a >pathless land." Walk away. > >Tim >Tmulligan@central.uh.edu > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 7:24 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Timothy Mulligan Re: Why I left Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D20348.A26505F@central.uh.edu>... >Well, it’s been a year since I left the Baha’i Faith after having been a >member for only several months. I thought I would commemorate the >return of my membership card by recounting why I left. >First, let me say that, with hindsight, I can’t imagine why I ever >joined the faith. I had sworn off religion, but something in the >advance literature (the pamphlets, the introductory books) seemed to >superficially resolve concerns I had that the multiplicity of religions >signaled their invalidity. >When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the >picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the spiritual >formation of members, especially new members. The unrelenting focus was >on getting new members. The hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” was >mindlessly and continuously repeated like a mantra. A quota was set on >the number of firesides to be reached by a particular date. For this >reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a “deepening.” What >did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a Baha’i meeting, where >every speaker to a man went on and on about getting new members. >Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape recorded >message would be played, usually, of course, on the subject either of >getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i Funds. I felt like I >was one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you imagine Bob Henderson, lounging > >by the pool?) > >I thought to myself: “Are these people crazy?” How in the world can >these people expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all >the new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant demand to >“teach” and get new members? Oh, and that’s another thing. I have to >laugh when I think back to what the “advance” literature said about >Baha’is not proselytizing. I discovered, alas too late, that there is a >particular Baha’i definition of “proselytize,” which means “to convert >by force or threats.” Oh, I see. So the happy-talk about not >proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! We don’t convert by force!” Wow. >What an enticement. I found out that instead, Baha’is “teach.” That’s >like saying, “I didn’t abort my child. I terminated a pregnancy.” >In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent of >AmWay. >Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made in >introductory literature. They don’t tell you how many wives Baha’u’llah >had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated today). Okay, >that’s not fair (although it’s true). One “teaching” book lauds the >perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every star hath its >planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter “and every planet >its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass big time. >Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “tablet of the true >seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan with dire threats hurled at unbelievers in >the Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder. >Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going nowhere >fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and >establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never >happen. I don’t care how many times Abdul Baha appears. He’s got lots >of competition from the Virgin Mary and little gray aliens. >Anyway, I quickly decided that I had to return my card to Bob >Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. Don’t >forget: ENTRY BY TROOPS! ENTRY BY TROOPS! >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 7:33 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Why I left Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D20348.A26505F@central.uh.edu>... >Well, it’s been a year since I left the Baha’i Faith after having been a >member for only several months. I thought I would commemorate the >return of my membership card by recounting why I left. >First, let me say that, with hindsight, I can’t imagine why I ever >joined the faith. I had sworn off religion, but something in the >advance literature (the pamphlets, the introductory books) seemed to >superficially resolve concerns I had that the multiplicity of religions >signaled their invalidity. >When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the >picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the spiritual >formation of members, especially new members. The unrelenting focus was >on getting new members. The hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” was >mindlessly and continuously repeated like a mantra. A quota was set on >the number of firesides to be reached by a particular date. For this >reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a “deepening.” What >did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a Baha’i meeting, where >every speaker to a man went on and on about getting new members. >Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape recorded >message would be played, usually, of course, on the subject either of >getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i Funds. I felt like I >was one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you imagine Bob Henderson, lounging >by the pool?) > >I thought to myself: “Are these people crazy?” How in the world can >these people expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all >the new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant demand to >“teach” and get new members? Oh, and that’s another thing. I have to >laugh when I think back to what the “advance” literature said about >Baha’is not proselytizing. I discovered, alas too late, that there is a >particular Baha’i definition of “proselytize,” which means “to convert >by force or threats.” Oh, I see. So the happy-talk about not >proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! We don’t convert by force!” Wow. >What an enticement. I found out that instead, Baha’is “teach.” That’s >like saying, “I didn’t abort my child. I terminated a pregnancy.” >In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent of >AmWay. >Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made in >introductory literature. You might find the articles on my web site regarding Bahai "hikmat" and dissimulation interesting. It's something to keep in mind when considering the things said by the srb "moderators" and those here opposed to talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm They don’t tell you how many wives Baha’u’llah >had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated today). Okay, >that’s not fair (although it’s true). One “teaching” book lauds the >perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every star hath its >planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter “and every planet >its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass big time. >Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “tablet of the true >seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan with dire threats hurled at unbelievers in >the Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder. For recent Bahais perhaps following Baha'u'llah's example in this regard you might look at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm >Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going nowhere >fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and >establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never >happen. I don’t care how many times Abdul Baha appears. He’s got lots >of competition from the Virgin Mary and little gray aliens. >Anyway, I quickly decided that I had to return my card to Bob >Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. Don’t >forget: ENTRY BY TROOPS! ENTRY BY TROOPS! >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu > > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 7:47 AM Subject: Re: Campaigning Bill Brewer wrote in message <35D27835.77E4E1D2@compusmart.ab.ca>... >BB: I support the creation of t.r.b. It will of course give the Faith >greater exposure. but it is my observation that many Bahai'is are simply >unused to vigorous debate, despite the 'clash of differing opinions', and >t.r.b. could provide that experience. Gee, why would they be unused to it when Abdu'l-Baha spoke so highly about the "clash of differing opinions"? Very few people post to a.r.b, >partly perhaps because of the Resident Grinch. In t.r.b, we must hope >for greater Baha'i participation, that others may see the Baha'i >diversity and how we conduct ourselves under pressure. Instead of using derogatory immature tropes, please read and study the insights of four observers of this Bahai technique at the end of the FAQ and kindly cease blaming others: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Mulligan, Tim[SMTP:TMulligan@Central.UH.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 10:35 AM To: 'Frederick Glaysher' Subject: RE: Walk away You got it. -----Original Message----- From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 6:23 AM To: Mulligan, Tim Subject: Re: Walk away I'd appreciate it if you'd please post your original of this message to alt.religion.bahai. I would think it would be of interest to Bahais and non-Bahais, as your other posts there yesterday must be too. Fundamentalist Bahais, you see, usually succeed in driving off most people still capable of thinking for themselves. For others to know that is important.... It would also give me the opportunity to answer your message publicly. Best wishes, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Mulligan, Tim To: 'FG@hotmail.com' Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 3:12 PM Subject: Walk away >Fred, > > Why don't you just walk away from the Baha'I Faith? > > I remember last year, when I was (very briefly) a Baha'I, I resented >your posts immensely. Now that I'm no longer a Baha'I, I wonder why you >don't do yourself a favor and give it a rest. > > I found, after just a month and a half of membership in the Baha'I >Faith, that this religion resembled AmWay in many ways. There was an >incredible focus on increasing numbers. At every feast, I constantly heard >that hackneyed phrase "entry by troops" batted around by wide-eyed fanatics. >And almost zero attention was paid to the spiritual formation of Baha'is. > > At this point, I have to agree with Krishnamurti. "Truth is a >pathless land." Walk away. > >Tim >Tmulligan@central.uh.edu > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 6:16 AM To: abuse@tripod.com Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Come and See Me -----Original Message----- From: emma@sexslaveheavenonearth.org Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 6:30 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Come and See Me >This message is for ADULTS ONLY > >I have put together some hardcore pictures of myself that I would >like you to look at, they are all free and just for you. > >Here is My Web Site Address: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~emma_148/index.html > > >If you are still feeling horney you can phone me on. >1-784-490-3164 >and I'll talk real dirty to you. > >A friend of mine is doing a Live Psychic line. >1-784-490-3863 > >These numbers are just at normal int'l Long Distance Rates. > >Cum and SEE me now. > >Love > >EMMA >https://members.tripod.com/~emma_148/index.html > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 6:28 AM Subject: Re: Re why Timothy left Fran Baker wrote in message <6qv2tc$5u1$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>... >(spelling fixed, sorry!) > >Timothy, > >I don't know if you'll see this, since it is only posted to arb, >but here goes (maybe Fred can forward, if necessary). > >If there is a talk.religion.bahai, then it is more likely that >rank and file Baha'is and other will see posts like yours >and perhaps benefit from a good look in the mirror. I think >the problems you see have become this intense only relatively >recently (last 20 years or so). This tide could be reversed, >and I think that is what Fred wants. I am also tempted to >tell him to take his wife to the Bahamas and sit on the beach >with a very large and strong pina colada! But since he is willing >to bang his head against the wall one more time and has some >chance of getting this passed, I am willing to help. > >I do agree with you that the Baha'i Faith is THE religion of >contradictions and intellectual hypocricy. The obsession with >converting, controlling, and fundraising (all meta-activities, >not religious/spiritual activities) is the final bankrupting >of the movement. (And stop making me ROTFL with your pot shots >at Baha'u'llah. You're a very bad boy!) > >Warmest unaffiliated regards, >Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 6:35 AM Subject: fw Timothy Mulligan Re: Why I left (expanded version) Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D30CCE.59BC2E38@central.uh.edu>... > Well, it’s been a year since I left the Baha’i Faith after having >been a member for only several months. I thought I would commemorate >the return of my membership card by recounting why I left. > > First, let me say that, with hindsight, I can’t imagine why I ever >joined the faith. I had sworn off religion, but something in the >advance literature (the pamphlets, the introductory books) seemed to >superficially allay concerns I had that the multiplicity of religions >signaled their invalidity. I thought to myself, "Here at last is a >tolerant religion that reconciles the differences. They say they don't >proselytize, and they affirm the truth of all the great religions." I >had some lingering doubts, especially regarding the inclusion of Buddha, >a man who refused to discuss metaphysics and who described Brahman as >deluded about his divinity, as a Manifestation of God. Also, the Baha'i >exegesis of the New Testament was tortured to say the least. But I >jumped in anyway. > > When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the >picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the spiritual >formation of members, especially new members. The unrelenting focus was >on getting new members. The hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” was >mindlessly and continuously repeated like a mantra. A goal was set by >my state's Bahai's on the number of firesides to be held by >Baha'u'llah's birthday. This rapacious attitude turned my stomach, >reminding me of Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought the Baha'i Faith was >tolerant toward other religions. Didn't this push for conversions imply >intolerance? > > For this reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a >“deepening.” I thought, "Now at last I'll find some spiritual >substance." What did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a Baha’i >National Spiritual Assembly meeting, where every speaker to a man went >on and on about getting new members. > > Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape recorded >message would be played, usually, of course, on the subject either of >getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i Funds. I felt like I >was one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you just imagine Bob Henderson, >lounging by the pool, sipping a (non-alcoholic) drink and dictating to >the tape recorder?) > > I thought to myself: Are these people crazy? How in the world can >they expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all that the >new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant demand to >“teach” and get new members? Oh, and that’s another thing. I have to >laugh when I think back to what the “advance” literature said about >Baha’is not proselytizing. I discovered, alas too late, that there is a >particular and peculiar Baha’i definition of “proselytize,” which means >“to convert by force or threats.” Oh, I see. So the happy-talk about >not proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! We don’t convert by force!” Wow. >What an enticement. I found out that instead, Baha’is “teach.” That’s >like saying, “I didn’t abort my child. I terminated a pregnancy.” > > In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent >of AmWay. > > Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made >in introductory literature. They don’t tell you how many wives >Baha’u’llah had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated >today). Okay, that’s not fair (although it’s true -- didn't you know >that you were praying to a midget?). One “teaching” book by Gary >Matthews lauds the perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every >star hath its planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter >“and every planet its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass >big time. > > Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “Tablet of the True >Seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which enjoins the independent investigation >of truth, with the dire, shrill threats hurled at unbelievers in the >Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder. There was so much >explaining and back-filling in Baha'i propaganda. For example, in the >Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah says that men can have two wives. Later, >Abdul Baha says that this meant men could only have one wife. Let the >mind games begin! > > Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going nowhere >fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and >establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never >happen. The early Christians expected Jesus (the real Jesus, not >Baha'u'llah-as-Jesus) to come back during their lifetimes; they were >wrong, and they're still waiting. Now the Bahai's are waiting for entry >by troops, the collapse of world civilization, and the triumphant >takeover of the world by Bahai's. It's not happening. I don’t care how >many times Abdul Baha appears. In any case, he’s got lots of >competition from the Virgin Mary, the Ascended Masters, and little gray >aliens. > > That brings me to a little metaphysical speculation. I'm sure there >have been apparitions of Abdul Baha, as well as amazing synchronicities >that Baha'is call "confirmations." But, folks, phenomena like this are >reported in all religions and spiritual paths. The world is awash in >reports of these types of things. Moreover, there has been a gang of >self-proclaimed god-men even in this century, from Reverend Moon to Adi >Da, each with their fanatical followers willing to follow the leader all >the way to martyrdom. This world, and the spiritual world, is a very >complicated and diverse place. In ways that we don't fully understand, >human beings can tap into spiritual realities and develop very real >psychic powers. In Hinduism, these are called "siddhis," and they've >been documented for several thousand years. They are not proof that >those possessed of them are worthy of worship. In fact, the spiritual >literature warns about the ego-inflation that can result from their >exercise. It seems to me that Baha'u'llah didn't heed that warning. > > Anyway, I finally decided that I had to return my membership card to >Bob Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. I >assure you that I will continue to wash my feet every day, not only in >the summer, but all year round. And don’t forget: ENTRY BY TROOPS! >ENTRY BY TROOPS! > >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 6:41 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: X-Bahai page Timothy Mulligan's recent posts remind me of something I've been intending to add to my web site for quite a while now.... An X-Bahai page, if you will, where for the first time, Bahais and non-Bahais can read the stories or truth about why so many people have chosen to exit the Bahai dispensation.... Though there are many such references throughout my web site but they're not collected in one place focussing on the subject.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 7:00 AM Subject: Re: Re why Timothy left Fran Baker wrote in message <6qv2tc$5u1$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>... > >If there is a talk.religion.bahai, then it is more likely that >rank and file Baha'is and other will see posts like yours >and perhaps benefit from a good look in the mirror. I think >the problems you see have become this intense only relatively >recently (last 20 years or so). This tide could be reversed, >and I think that is what Fred wants. Basically, that is all that I want.... In my opinion, I haven't attacked the covenant, the Guardianship, the Hands, or the UHJ.... (Thank God Shoghi Effendi had no children.... Can you imagine where the Faith would be if he had....) I am also tempted to >tell him to take his wife to the Bahamas and sit on the beach >with a very large and strong pina colada! But since he is willing >to bang his head against the wall one more time and has some >chance of getting this passed, I am willing to help. A tempting image!!!! But, alas, I have a very thick head.... >I do agree with you that the Baha'i Faith is THE religion of >contradictions and intellectual hypocricy. The obsession with >converting, controlling, and fundraising (all meta-activities, >not religious/spiritual activities) is the final bankrupting >of the movement. You may be right. I hope the real problem is the dominance of a benighted, narrow-minded interpretation of the writings.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 7:26 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D2FB66.EFDB0F8F@central.uh.edu>... >Fred, > >Why don’t you just walk away from the Baha’I Faith? Because I believe the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is the Will of God for this day and age.... > >I remember last year, when I was (very briefly) a Baha’I, I resented >your posts immensely. Now that I’m no longer a Baha’I, I wonder why you >don’t do yourself a favor and give it a rest. Give what a rest? The defense of the Bahai Faith from a narrow, ignorant interpretation? I see that as my duty if I truly believe in the veracity of Baha'u'llah's claims, which I do.... It's painful for many to look at what a comtemptible little organization the Bahai Faith has become, but it is necessary if the troops are ever really going to enter this religion, and it is my dearest wish that they do.... Shoghi Effendi stated repeatedly that when the masses enter they'll sweep the dross out.... One shouldn't be surprised that the dross protects their little advantages and perks around the pool, what Marxists called "useful fools" doing all the work.... Can you explain in more detail WHY you resented my messages or why perhaps other Bahais you may have known did? >I found, after just a month and a half of membership in the Baha’I >Faith, that this religion resembled AmWay in many ways. A most ap propos comparison.... >There was an incredible focus on increasing numbers. At every >feast, I constantly heard >that hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” batted around by wide-eyed >fanatics. It can be hackneyed, often is, but history is marked by such major transformations of societies much to their betterment.... Profound moral and social confusion, anomie, have always heralded such changes.... And almost zero attention was paid to the spiritual formation >of Baha’is. The religion quickly came to appear to me as a shell, a >husk, a mere vehicle, an organization seeking growth for growth's sake. >Even community efforts like those directed at the awareness of racism >were designed as pretexts for getting new members. Shoghi Effendi warned the organization could become an end unto itself.... It often does and has and only free speech and conscience can proffer resistance to that decline and revitalize it.... >At this point in my spiritual life, I have to agree with Krishnamurti: >“Truth is a pathless land.” Walk away. > >Tim >Tmulligan@central.uh.edu It would be unmanly to walk away from injustice and from what I genuinely believe, within the limitations imposed on humankind, to allude to Abdu'l-Baha, to be the truth.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 8:32 AM To: suggestions@AOL.com Subject: alt.religion.bahai & web site I'd like to suggest you add my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" under Web Sites on the Baha'i link from the More Spirituality Resources: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Also, there is another newsgroup on the Bahai Faith that really should be available on AOL and listed under newsgroups at More Spirituality Resources: alt.religion.bahai I've had, in three months, more than 2,600 hits on my Bahai web site which I believe shows a very strong interest in religious freedom of speech and conscience regarding the Bahai Faith. Dejanews.com shows more than 14,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai since its formation in April of 1997. I and many other Bahais and non-Bahais believe there is a very profound problem with censorship in the Bahai Faith. I would appreciate very much these sites being made available to people to make up their own minds. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ FG@AOL.com, FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 8:41 AM Subject: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site A number of people in the past have remarked that alt.religion.bahai is not available on America Online. I've recently opened an account there only to be surprised too at that fact so I called in and spoke with an employee who was also surprised since AOL carries, according to him, all of the alt hierarchy except for the pornography newsgroups. He advised me to email newsmaster@aol.com and to request that alt.religion.bahai be added. I'd like to suggest that anyone else using AOL might do the same and perhaps even other people might do so too. ----------submitted message follows: I'd like to suggest you add my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" under Web Sites on the Baha'i link from the More Spirituality Resources: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Also, there is another newsgroup on the Bahai Faith that really should be available on AOL and listed under newsgroups at More Spirituality Resources, using the Keyword search Religion: alt.religion.bahai I've had, in three months, more than 2,600 hits on my Bahai web site which I believe shows a very strong interest in religious freedom of speech and conscience regarding the Bahai Faith. Dejanews.com shows more than 14,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai since its formation in April of 1997. I and many other Bahais and non-Bahais believe there is a very profound problem with censorship in the Bahai Faith. I would appreciate very much these sites being made available to people to make up their own minds. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 3:54 PM Subject: Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site Keep trying. Maybe if hit from all sides they'll do something. The thought occurs to me that maybe a fundamentalist Bahai runs the the show there.... Try the voice number: 800-827-6364.... The guy I talked to couldn't understand why it wasn't there already. Maybe something is actually going on.... -----Original Message----- From: Bintyaya@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 2:38 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site >Good luck. I wrote the newsmaster more than once. I never got a personal >reply, but was given standardized form replies. I never did reach a real >person who would actually look into the problem. > >n a message dated 98-08-14 08:42:04 EDT, you write: > ><< Subj: [bahai-faith] AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site > Date: 98-08-14 08:42:04 EDT > From: FG@hotmail.com (Frederick Glaysher) > Reply-to: bahai-faith@makelist.com > To: bahai-faith@makelist.com (bahai-faith @ makelist.com) > > A number of people in the past have remarked that > alt.religion.bahai is not available on America Online. > I've recently opened an account there only to be surprised too > at that fact so I called in and spoke with an employee who was > also surprised since AOL carries, according to him, all of > the alt hierarchy except for the pornography newsgroups. > > He advised me to email newsmaster@aol.com and to request > that alt.religion.bahai be added. I'd like to suggest that anyone > else using AOL might do the same and perhaps even other > people might do so too. > > >> > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 4:04 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D46D1F.DAC90B8E@central.uh.edu>... > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Can you explain in more detail WHY you resented my >> messages or why perhaps other Bahais you may have >> known did? > >Sure. But I can only speak for myself. I took the same attitude toward you >that I took toward "liberal" or heterodox Catholics when I was among their >number: How can one challenge a supposedly divinely instituted and divinely >influenced institution, while at the same time claiming allegiance to the >supposedly divine one who commissioned the institution? I don't believe the srb moderators are commissioned by Baha'u'llah.... The denunciation of the perversion of the Church is a time-honored tradition throughout Catholicism.... Indeed, a profoundly necessary one.... I might mention I'm a former Catholic.... Langland's Piers the Ploughman comes to mind, a fine old fourteenth century work, one of my favorite epic poems.... >For example, although gay myself, I could not understand how so many gay >Catholics could defy the Church's teaching on homosexuality, be sexually >active, and yet claim to be true, faithful Catholics. When I was Catholic, I >struggled with restraining my sexuality and frequently ended up in the >confessional. I never rationalized away my homosexual behavior by telling >myself, say, that St. Paul in Romans referred to male prostitution and not to >a relationship between men whose orientation was homosexual. > >I don't remember whether or not you've challenged decisions by the UHJ (which >does have an alleged divine mandate and promise of infallibility), or whether >you've limited your attacks to "lesser" institutions like NSA's and LSA's. >But if you have, my criticism applies to you. You can't slap someone's hand >while smiling at their head. There are idiots in the Bahai administration, many in fact.... To say that is different from saying the institutions themselves are illegitimate.... > >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher Mr. Noland, As in your message here, you have always appeared to me to be one of the masters of the Bahai technique observed by a number of people at the end of the FAQ. Please read and study it: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ John Noland wrote in message ... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6r16qj$2ri@news3.newsguy.com>... >.>Can you explain in more detail WHY you resented my >>messages or why perhaps other Bahais you may have >>known did? >> > > >Hi Frederick, > >While I don't really resent your messages, I do take offense >when you attack a person on a personal level. Any person. >I read every message to this group. There are times when >I feel like your justified in defending yourself, but there are other >times when I absolutely can't square your reaction with what >other people have said. In other words, there are times when >you appear to be very unfair to other people. Granted, you have >long histories with some of the people on this group and I likely >don't know the whole story. But, in the here and now of this >newsgroup you cast yourself in a very poor light sometimes >by attacking people on a personal level. > >I'm really trying to understand you Frederick. I'm trying hard. Right >now, I'm working from the point-of-view that you see yourself as a >sort of Howard Roark. The hard-headed Architect of Ayn Rand's >Fountainhead. Except, Howard Roark would absorb attacks and >let his work speak for itself. He never resorted to character >assasinations. That was the domain of Ellsworth Tooey. > >Just some thoughts, > >John > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 7:07 AM To: Newsmaster AOL.com; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Bahais censor AOL.com (was Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site) It seems to me that before moving on to dusting off the last RFD, this issue really should be resolved.... There are over 15 or 20 MILLION subscribers to AOL and many of them may be interested in participating in the discussion and voting for talk.religion.bahai but unable to do so. I'm quite serious about investigating the possibility that Bahais have somehow managed to influence either an individual at AOL or through group pressure brought this about..... Again, I advise people interested in seeing alt.religion.bahai added to the available newsgroups to call the 800-827-6364. Talk to a person and explain the censorship that has been part and parcel of the entire year and a half struggle to create talk.religion.bahai and be sure to get an email address other newsmaster@AOL.com The more people who contact AOL the better; otherwise, they'll assume only one or two people care about this.... It shouldn't be ruled out that Bahai fundamentalists will also contact AOL and somehow attempt now to suppress any efforts to add alt.religion.bahai to AOL's newsgroups.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6r24kb$ccj@news3.newsguy.com>... >Keep trying. Maybe if hit from all sides they'll do something. >The thought occurs to me that maybe a fundamentalist Bahai >runs the the show there.... > >Try the voice number: 800-827-6364.... The guy I talked to >couldn't understand why it wasn't there already. Maybe >something is actually going on.... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bintyaya@aol.com >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 2:38 PM >Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site > > >>Good luck. I wrote the newsmaster more than once. I never got a personal >>reply, but was given standardized form replies. I never did reach a real >>person who would actually look into the problem. >> >>n a message dated 98-08-14 08:42:04 EDT, you write: >> >><< Subj: [bahai-faith] AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site >> Date: 98-08-14 08:42:04 EDT >> From: FG@hotmail.com (Frederick Glaysher) >> Reply-to: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> To: bahai-faith@makelist.com (bahai-faith @ makelist.com) >> >> A number of people in the past have remarked that >> alt.religion.bahai is not available on America Online. >> I've recently opened an account there only to be surprised too >> at that fact so I called in and spoke with an employee who was >> also surprised since AOL carries, according to him, all of >> the alt hierarchy except for the pornography newsgroups. >> >> He advised me to email newsmaster@aol.com and to request >> that alt.religion.bahai be added. I'd like to suggest that anyone >> else using AOL might do the same and perhaps even other >> people might do so too. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> > > ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 7:23 AM To: techprob@aol.net Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Technical Support Question I'm puzzled with why my message went to a technical area. I used, I believe, the address newsmaster@AOL.com. Please email me back with the appropriate address to which I should direct my request that alt.religion.bahai be added to AOL's available newsgroups. Thank you. FG@AOL.com FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 7:39 AM To: SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Welcome from CEO & Chairman of America Online Dear Mr. Case: Thank you for welcoming me to AOL. I'm writing you because I'm concerned that alt.religion.bahai is not available on AOL. I'm sure you're not aware of it, but there has been more than a year and a half effort by fundamentalist Bahais to suppress freedom of religious conscience and speech on Usenet. Among other ways, this effort has manifested itself through vehement opposition to the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, which is approaching its third interest poll at the end of this month on news.groups. While the messages I've appended to the end of this one provide more details, let me state that a number of AOL members during the last year have unsuccessfully requested that alt.religion.bahai be added to AOL. Is there any way in which you might help? Concerns are beginning to arise that perhaps someone who is a Bahai and an employee of AOL is secretly opposing the creation of talk.religion.bahai or perhaps some other undue pressure is responsible. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher FG@AOL.com FG@hotmail.com "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm -------------------- Subj: Fwd: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup Date: 98-08-11 17:46:01 EDT From: Fglaysher To: NewsMaster CC: FG@hotmail.com Oops! I forgot to mention I first called in on the 800 technical support line and spoke with a person named Rob about access to alt.religion.bahai. He told me to email you and and mention his name. Sorry for a double message if that's what this becomes.... ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup Date: 98-08-11 17:34:43 EDT From: Fglaysher To: NewsMaster CC: FG@hotmail.com I'm a new subscriber to AOL just today. I was hoping to be able to read the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup which has been in existence for more than a year and a half now. It is regularly archived by dejanews.com. However, I am really disappointed not to be able to find it in your list of the alt hierarchy newsgroups nor with a direct search for it using that feature. Is it not offered by AOL? It's not one of the pornography newsgroups in the alt hierarchy.... Dejanews.com shows more than 14,000 messages posted to it during the last year and a half. Is there any way you could turn it on or make it available so that I and other AOL members can read it? I'd appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Since this is my first message from my AOL address, I'd appreciate it if you'd cc me too at FG@hotmail.com just to be sure I receive your reply. Fred Glaysher FG@AOL.com ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:00 AM To: AOLHelp@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: An Important Message... Thank you for welcoming me to AOL. I'm writing you because I'm concerned that alt.religion.bahai is not available on AOL. I'm sure you're not aware of it, but there has been more than a year and a half effort by fundamentalist Bahais to suppress freedom of religious conscience and speech on Usenet. Among other ways, this effort has manifested itself through vehement opposition to the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, which is approaching its third interest poll at the end of this month on news.groups. While the messages I've appended to the end of this one provide more details, let me state that a number of AOL members during the last year have unsuccessfully requested that alt.religion.bahai be added to AOL. Messages by them to this effect can currently be found on alt.religion.bahai. Is there any way in which you might help? Concerns are beginning to arise that perhaps someone who is a Bahai and an employee of AOL is secretly opposing the creation of talk.religion.bahai or perhaps some other undue pressure is responsible. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher FG@AOL.com FG@hotmail.com "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm --------- Subj: Fwd: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup Date: 98-08-11 17:46:01 EDT From: Fglaysher To: NewsMaster CC: FG@hotmail.com Oops! I forgot to mention I first called in on the 800 technical support line and spoke with a person named Rob about access to alt.religion.bahai. He told me to email you and and mention his name. Sorry for a double message if that's what this becomes.... ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup Date: 98-08-11 17:34:43 EDT From: Fglaysher To: NewsMaster CC: FG@hotmail.com I'm a new subscriber to AOL just today. I was hoping to be able to read the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup which has been in existence for more than a year and a half now. It is regularly archived by dejanews.com. However, I am really disappointed not to be able to find it in your list of the alt hierarchy newsgroups nor with a direct search for it using that feature. Is it not offered by AOL? It's not one of the pornography newsgroups in the alt hierarchy.... Dejanews.com shows more than 14,000 messages posted to it during the last year and a half. Is there any way you could turn it on or make it available so that I and other AOL members can read it? I'd appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Since this is my first message from my AOL address, I'd appreciate it if you'd cc me too at FG@hotmail.com just to be sure I receive your reply. Fred Glaysher FG@AOL.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:20 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Bahais censor AOL.com (was Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site) -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: Re: Welcome from CEO & Chairman of America Online >Dear Mr. Case: > >Thank you for welcoming me to AOL. I'm writing you because >I'm concerned that alt.religion.bahai is not available on AOL. > >I'm sure you're not aware of it, but there has been more >than a year and a half effort by fundamentalist Bahais to >suppress freedom of religious conscience and speech on >Usenet. Among other ways, this effort has manifested itself >through vehement opposition to the formation of an unmoderated >newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, which is approaching its third >interest poll at the end of this month on news.groups. > >While the messages I've appended to the end of this one >provide more details, let me state that a number of AOL >members during the last year have unsuccessfully >requested that alt.religion.bahai be added to AOL. > >Is there any way in which you might help? Concerns are >beginning to arise that perhaps someone who is a Bahai >and an employee of AOL is secretly opposing the >creation of talk.religion.bahai or perhaps some other >undue pressure is responsible. > >Respectfully, > >Frederick Glaysher >FG@AOL.com >FG@hotmail.com >"The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > > >-------------------- >Subj: Fwd: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup >Date: 98-08-11 17:46:01 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: NewsMaster >CC: FG@hotmail.com > >Oops! I forgot to mention I first called in on the 800 technical >support line and spoke with a person named Rob about >access to alt.religion.bahai. He told me to email you and >and mention his name. Sorry for a double message if that's >what this becomes.... >----------------- >Forwarded Message: >Subj: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup >Date: 98-08-11 17:34:43 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: NewsMaster >CC: FG@hotmail.com > >I'm a new subscriber to AOL just today. I was hoping to be >able to read the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup which has been >in existence for more than a year and a half now. It is regularly >archived by dejanews.com. However, I am really disappointed >not to be able to find it in your list of the alt hierarchy newsgroups >nor with a direct search for it using that feature. > >Is it not offered by AOL? It's not one of the pornography >newsgroups in the alt hierarchy.... Dejanews.com shows >more than 14,000 messages posted to it during the last >year and a half. > >Is there any way you could turn it on or make it available >so that I and other AOL members can read it? > >I'd appreciate it. Thanks a lot. > >Since this is my first message from my AOL address, >I'd appreciate it if you'd cc me too at FG@hotmail.com >just to be sure I receive your reply. > >Fred Glaysher >FG@AOL.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:22 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: AOLHelp@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Re: An Important Message... > >Thank you for welcoming me to AOL. I'm writing you because >I'm concerned that alt.religion.bahai is not available on AOL. > >I'm sure you're not aware of it, but there has been more >than a year and a half effort by fundamentalist Bahais to >suppress freedom of religious conscience and speech on >Usenet. Among other ways, this effort has manifested itself >through vehement opposition to the formation of an unmoderated >newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, which is approaching its third >interest poll at the end of this month on news.groups. > >While the messages I've appended to the end of this one >provide more details, let me state that a number of AOL >members during the last year have unsuccessfully >requested that alt.religion.bahai be added to AOL. >Messages by them to this effect can currently be >found on alt.religion.bahai. > >Is there any way in which you might help? Concerns are >beginning to arise that perhaps someone who is a Bahai >and an employee of AOL is secretly opposing the >creation of talk.religion.bahai or perhaps some other >undue pressure is responsible. > >Respectfully, > >Frederick Glaysher >FG@AOL.com >FG@hotmail.com >"The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >--------- >Subj: Fwd: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup >Date: 98-08-11 17:46:01 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: NewsMaster >CC: FG@hotmail.com > >Oops! I forgot to mention I first called in on the 800 technical >support line and spoke with a person named Rob about >access to alt.religion.bahai. He told me to email you and >and mention his name. Sorry for a double message if that's >what this becomes.... >----------------- >Forwarded Message: >Subj: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup >Date: 98-08-11 17:34:43 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: NewsMaster >CC: FG@hotmail.com > >I'm a new subscriber to AOL just today. I was hoping to be >able to read the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup which has been >in existence for more than a year and a half now. It is regularly >archived by dejanews.com. However, I am really disappointed >not to be able to find it in your list of the alt hierarchy newsgroups >nor with a direct search for it using that feature. > >Is it not offered by AOL? It's not one of the pornography >newsgroups in the alt hierarchy.... Dejanews.com shows >more than 14,000 messages posted to it during the last >year and a half. > >Is there any way you could turn it on or make it available >so that I and other AOL members can read it? > >I'd appreciate it. Thanks a lot. > >Since this is my first message from my AOL address, >I'd appreciate it if you'd cc me too at FG@hotmail.com >just to be sure I receive your reply. > >Fred Glaysher >FG@AOL.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:22 AM Subject: Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: AOLHelp@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Re: An Important Message... > >Thank you for welcoming me to AOL. I'm writing you because >I'm concerned that alt.religion.bahai is not available on AOL. > >I'm sure you're not aware of it, but there has been more >than a year and a half effort by fundamentalist Bahais to >suppress freedom of religious conscience and speech on >Usenet. Among other ways, this effort has manifested itself >through vehement opposition to the formation of an unmoderated >newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, which is approaching its third >interest poll at the end of this month on news.groups. > >While the messages I've appended to the end of this one >provide more details, let me state that a number of AOL >members during the last year have unsuccessfully >requested that alt.religion.bahai be added to AOL. >Messages by them to this effect can currently be >found on alt.religion.bahai. > >Is there any way in which you might help? Concerns are >beginning to arise that perhaps someone who is a Bahai >and an employee of AOL is secretly opposing the >creation of talk.religion.bahai or perhaps some other >undue pressure is responsible. > >Respectfully, > >Frederick Glaysher >FG@AOL.com >FG@hotmail.com >"The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >--------- >Subj: Fwd: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup >Date: 98-08-11 17:46:01 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: NewsMaster >CC: FG@hotmail.com > >Oops! I forgot to mention I first called in on the 800 technical >support line and spoke with a person named Rob about >access to alt.religion.bahai. He told me to email you and >and mention his name. Sorry for a double message if that's >what this becomes.... >----------------- >Forwarded Message: >Subj: Request for alt.religion.bahai newsgroup >Date: 98-08-11 17:34:43 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: NewsMaster >CC: FG@hotmail.com > >I'm a new subscriber to AOL just today. I was hoping to be >able to read the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup which has been >in existence for more than a year and a half now. It is regularly >archived by dejanews.com. However, I am really disappointed >not to be able to find it in your list of the alt hierarchy newsgroups >nor with a direct search for it using that feature. > >Is it not offered by AOL? It's not one of the pornography >newsgroups in the alt hierarchy.... Dejanews.com shows >more than 14,000 messages posted to it during the last >year and a half. > >Is there any way you could turn it on or make it available >so that I and other AOL members can read it? > >I'd appreciate it. Thanks a lot. > >Since this is my first message from my AOL address, >I'd appreciate it if you'd cc me too at FG@hotmail.com >just to be sure I receive your reply. > >Fred Glaysher >FG@AOL.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:23 AM Subject: Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: techprob@aol.net Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 7:23 AM Subject: Re: Technical Support Question >I'm puzzled with why my message went to a technical >area. I used, I believe, the address newsmaster@AOL.com. > >Please email me back with the appropriate address to >which I should direct my request that alt.religion.bahai >be added to AOL's available newsgroups. > >Thank you. > >FG@AOL.com >FG@hotmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 8:27 AM Subject: news release to 30+ newspapers I'd like to bring to the attention of your newspaper the more than a year and a half struggle to create an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. Many members and non-members of the Bahai Faith believe there has been a pervasive and systematic effort to oppose the creation of talk.religion.bahai by both individual Bahais and the Bahai administration. The THIRD attempt will begin after the end of this month on Usenet on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. Your readers that might be interested in this area of religious freedom and free speech might find interesting the current discussion on alt.religion.bahai or the extensive files on my web site. I and many other Bahais would appreciate any assistance or advice your readers might be able to offer. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 9:07 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: 150+ srb posters since banning of my sig file Following the advice of news groupies on news.groups, I've emailed directly more than 150 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since the srb "moderators" imposed a moratorium on my signature file in late May. The details of their "decision" can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 1998 9:14 AM Subject: Bogus talk.religion.bahai Someone has recently emailed me to the effect below: >Also try looking for trb, you'll be pleasantly surprised. As I and others have pointed out, the bogus talk.religion.bahai was not created properly under Usenet guidlelines, never passed an interest poll on news.groups, and therefore should really not be used or posted to by those interested in creating an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith that most system administrators around the world will accept and offer to their members. It appears on the news.groups list of bogus groups. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 10:09 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; Timothy Mulligan Subject: Re: Tablet of Reality Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D4B714.527D39D3@central.uh.edu>... > and I solemnly declare that thou shalt >never again hear from Me. I hope this doesn't mean you're going to let the fundamentalits Bahais run you off.... If you really want to do something to help other Bahais and non-Bahais who perhaps have had your experience or something like, you might consider staying around and contributing to making talk.religion.bahai a reality.... We need you Timothy.... Don't let the fanatics win and drive you away as they have with so many others.... If you haven't before, take a look at the end of the FAQ: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Your silence is exactly what they want and are hoping for.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 10:17 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Bahais censor AOL.com (was Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site) Can someone send out a "booster message" for alt.religion.bahai? I have no idea what exactly that is but would appreciate it if someone with the know-how would take the time to do so. Recent discussion to this effect is given below. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Roger Reini wrote in message <35e0d691.218249364@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 07:07:07 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>It seems to me that before moving on to dusting off the last RFD, >>this issue really should be resolved.... There are over 15 or 20 >>MILLION subscribers to AOL and many of them may be interested >>in participating in the discussion and voting for talk.religion.bahai >>but unable to do so. >> >>I'm quite serious about investigating the possibility that Bahais >>have somehow managed to influence either an individual at AOL >>or through group pressure brought this about..... > >I think this highly unlikely. I think it more likely that the news >administrators at AOL either missed the message or didn't see a clamor >for it from AOL members. > >If it's the first case, then it wouldn't be a bad idea to request that >a booster message for a.r.b be sent out. Take it to alt.config. I'm >sure someone would be willing to act on it. > >If it's the second, then the AOL members will have to begin requesting >it. The requests don't need to say anything about censorship; IMHO, >they'd be more effective if they didn't. All they need to say is 'I'm >interested in reading alt.religion.bahai; would you please add it?' > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 10:17 AM Subject: Re: Bahais censor AOL.com (was Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site) Can someone send out a "booster message" for alt.religion.bahai? I have no idea what exactly that is but would appreciate it if someone with the know-how would take the time to do so. Recent discussion to this effect is given below. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Roger Reini wrote in message <35e0d691.218249364@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 07:07:07 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>It seems to me that before moving on to dusting off the last RFD, >>this issue really should be resolved.... There are over 15 or 20 >>MILLION subscribers to AOL and many of them may be interested >>in participating in the discussion and voting for talk.religion.bahai >>but unable to do so. >> >>I'm quite serious about investigating the possibility that Bahais >>have somehow managed to influence either an individual at AOL >>or through group pressure brought this about..... > >I think this highly unlikely. I think it more likely that the news >administrators at AOL either missed the message or didn't see a clamor >for it from AOL members. > >If it's the first case, then it wouldn't be a bad idea to request that >a booster message for a.r.b be sent out. Take it to alt.config. I'm >sure someone would be willing to act on it. > >If it's the second, then the AOL members will have to begin requesting >it. The requests don't need to say anything about censorship; IMHO, >they'd be more effective if they didn't. All they need to say is 'I'm >interested in reading alt.religion.bahai; would you please add it?' > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 10:46 AM Subject: fw Milissa B. Kafes Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher I believe the passages on my web site quoted from Abdu'l-Baha are quite positive about freedom of conscience and belief.... Other than those highly significant passages, I do agree Bahais have very little to offer that is not negative.... To me, that is a pity.... Abdu'l-Baha held up a higher standard of respect for other people's opinions.... In an atmosphere of fear and tyranny, it is naturally and understandable that many would be afraid to speak candidly.... For over a year and half, I have attempted to lay the groundwork for open, honest free speech in the Bahai Faith.... I believe my web site documents the response I and others have received from most Bahais.... I wish it were a different response.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Milissa B. Kafes To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 11:39 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher >Frederick, > >you wrote: > >>Because I believe the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is the Will of >>God for this day and age.... > > >After looking at your website, apart from the two quotes from 'Abdu'l-Baha, >I couldn't find anything positive. You spend considerable effort telling >everyone what is wrong, why not mention things that are right? By this I >mean, what on your website (or the newsgroups) would convince a non-Baha'i >to believe in Baha'u'llah? If anything, a non-Baha'i reading it would run >away screaming! > >Lets suppose you get your newsgroup. Lets suppose that all censorship >within the faith ended tomorrow. What on earth would you talk about??? > >Seriously > >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 10:46 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Milissa B. Kafes Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher I believe the passages on my web site quoted from Abdu'l-Baha are quite positive about freedom of conscience and belief.... Other than those highly significant passages, I do agree Bahais have very little to offer that is not negative.... To me, that is a pity.... Abdu'l-Baha held up a higher standard of respect for other people's opinions.... In an atmosphere of fear and tyranny, it is naturally and understandable that many would be afraid to speak candidly.... For over a year and half, I have attempted to lay the groundwork for open, honest free speech in the Bahai Faith.... I believe my web site documents the response I and others have received from most Bahais.... I wish it were a different response.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Milissa B. Kafes To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 11:39 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Open letter to Fred Glaysher >Frederick, > >you wrote: > >>Because I believe the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is the Will of >>God for this day and age.... > > >After looking at your website, apart from the two quotes from 'Abdu'l-Baha, >I couldn't find anything positive. You spend considerable effort telling >everyone what is wrong, why not mention things that are right? By this I >mean, what on your website (or the newsgroups) would convince a non-Baha'i >to believe in Baha'u'llah? If anything, a non-Baha'i reading it would run >away screaming! > >Lets suppose you get your newsgroup. Lets suppose that all censorship >within the faith ended tomorrow. What on earth would you talk about??? > >Seriously > >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 12:03 PM To: CLMPNYC@aol.com Subject: web site? Do you have a web site? I'd appreciate the address. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: Why I left (expanded version) -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 11:22 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Why I left >LaAeterna@aol.com wrote: >> >> Poor Timothy. Evidently he missed the part where Baha'u'llah states we are to >> know of our own knowledge and see with our own eyes. I guess he was >> expecting a quick fix and didn't want to take the time to do any in depth >> study on his own... >> Nancy > >I think that's a trifle harsh. Sorting out the >full reasons for the present predicament isn't >at all easy, and it is also written in scripture >that "by their fruits shall ye know them". If the >Baha'is Timothy knew couldn't give him the smallest >reason to want to hang around after sincerely >chosing Baha'u'llah, then there must be something >very severely wrong with the Baha'is. I know exactly >what Timothy means. Here in Australia, they sent out >a glossy, expensive booklet about the three things >necessary for (wait for it) Entry By Troops. The outer >one was teaching, the inner one spiritual transformation. >But almost every word inside concerned teaching. Their idea >of spiritual transformation was limited to calls for >deepenings and prayers. The fact is they just don't >know how to do anything different, even though they >have been calling for (and not getting) Entry By Troops >ever since I became a Baha'i in the '70s. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 8:06 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: Tablet of Reality -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 11:52 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Tablet of Reality >Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote: >> >> Frederick-- >> >> You say you believe in Baha'u'llah, yet you want this guy to stay? He's >> mocked the Writings and called Baha'u'llah names! Why don't you stand up for >> your Prophet? This is an example of what I meant earlier that you shoot >> yourself in the foot. The enemy of your enemy is NOT necessarily your >> friend. One does not have to be a fundamentalist to be upset with these >> kinds of posts. > >While I agreed with your post in which you said Fred >shoots himself in the foot (apologies, Fred, but you >_do_ do it!), I don't agree that this is an example >of him doing it. :-) > >Timothy's post was an unpleasant read for a mainstream >Baha'i, for sure, and you might not like Baha'u'llah >getting called names, but the analysis of Baha'i >communities was dead on line. I've seen it myself so >often I'm sick of it. There are thousands of inactive >Baha'is who dropped out because they got fed up with >the purely 'external' religion they found promoting >these mundane activities to the exclusion of almost >all else, and many more Baha'is who, through their >faith, remain active but are quietly dying inside >because they don't find the true waters of the spirit >to quench their thirst. A single voice raised in a >feast is easily drowned out by the clamour of dozens >of superficial people too busy planning the next >great "Entry By Troops" campaign to listen to the voice >of anyone telling them what they REALLY should be >doing: > >"Not by the force of numbers, not by the mere exposition >of a set of new and noble principles, not by an >organized campaign of teaching--no matter how worldwide >and elaborate in its character--not even by the staunchness >of our faith or the exaltation of our enthusiasm, can we >ultimately hope to vindicate in the eyes of a critical >and sceptical age the supreme claim of the Abha Revelation. >One thing and only one thing will unfailingly and alone >secure the undoubted triumph of this sacred Cause, namely, >the extent to which our own inner life and private >character mirror forth in their manifold aspects the >splendour of those eternal principles proclaimed >by Baha'u'llah." > > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: looking for tenets of the bahai faith Please see my web site for Abdu'l-Baha stating the "conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Greg Lorriman wrote in message <729873436wnr@lorriman.demon.co.uk>... > >Hi Folks, > >Can anyone point me in the direction of an authoritative source of the tenets of the bahai >faith. > >I'm putting together a web site that contrasts and compares different faiths by listing each >faiths' basic dogmas and each faiths' definition of a selection of words (listed below). >Please do help me. > >Word list: > >God >faith >truth >good >evil >soul >love >hate >heaven >hell >worship >prayer > >and also : > >purpose of man > >and any other words that define important bahai concepts distinct from the above. I very >much need to know that whatever you tell me is on established authority. If there is more >than one authority I would like to know more about them. I am aware that some of the >above can have more than one (valid) definition and that some definitions are very >wordy; please limit each word to 2-3 definitions and a paragraph for each at the most. > >Here's an example : > >God : > > A supreme being infinite in all his perfections > is Truth > is Love > > >Thanks > > Greg > >Ps please reply to the newsgroup - don't email me as otherwise your info won't be subject > to the (limited) peer scrutiny that the ng's afford. > >-- > >Greg Lorriman co. inc. & sons Ltd > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 8:27 AM Subject: Re: Bahais censor AOL.com (was Re: AOL.com - alt.religion.bahai & web site) I seem to have found the relevant passage below. Anyone make sense of this? What and how do you do this? It's beyond me.... Can someone else take this project on? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ quote follows: What is a ``booster'' message? A ``booster'' message is essentially exactly the same as a newgroup message. In fact, all it is is just sending another newgroup message so that hopefully sites which either did not see, or which ignored the first message will create the group the second time around. When sending a booster newgroup, you SHOULD add a short paragraph at the beginning of the body of the message explaining that this is a booster message, and include information such as when the group was first created and why you're sending the booster. Note that you should not send boosters too often, as typically news admins are notified of newgroup requests by email from the news server, and you don't want to annoy anyone by cluttering up their mailbox. After creating a new group, sending a booster every couple weeks for the first month or so is typically a good idea, and then perhaps every six months to a year after that, but be careful not to overdo it. It is generally far more effective in getting a site to carry a new newsgroup to have one of their users request it, than it is to send multiple newgroup messages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Brian Edmonds, July 14, 1998 barbara@.bookpro.com wrote in message <35e6fc00.12432984@news1.radix.net>... >On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:17:46 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>Can someone send out a "booster message" for alt.religion.bahai? >> >>I have no idea what exactly that is but would appreciate it if someone >>with the know-how would take the time to do so. Recent discussion >>to this effect is given below. Thanks. > >Someone in the Bahai newsgroup who is not on AOL should be able to >send one. A booster message is basically the same as a newgroup >message except that the sender should put "BOOSTER" prominently at the >top of the message body. > >To find out how to send a newgroup (or booster) message, see: > >https://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html > >and/or: > >https://angelfire.com/tx/calame/createnewsgroups.html > >The latter site includes instructions for adding the necessary headers >to Free Agent. > >After the booster message is sent, AOL customers should also request >that the newsgroup be added. I've heard that AOL is reluctant to add >new newsgroups unless there is a demand for them. > >BW ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Declaration of human rights You're really posting in the wrong place.... Bahais don't believe in human rights unless there's something in it for them.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ loriann wrote in message <6r8fmq$5s0q$1@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>... >To celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human >Rights, Amnesty International is collecting signatures for a pledge to >support this very important United Nations declaration. > >Amnesty already has 3 million signatures (real and virtual) world wide, and >wants 8 million (which would be 1% of the world's population). The UN >Secretary General has already agreed to be present either in person or live >by satellite, if he has to be in New York, to receive the pledge as a >tangible statement of the people of the world's commitment to an >international agenda of human rights. > >The most simple way to add your name to the pledge is to: > >Send an email to > >udhr50th@amnesty.org.au > >Put YOUR NAME in the SUBJECT and the following text in the message: "I >support the rights and freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights >for all people, everywhere." > >Another place to sign up if you prefer to use a website rather than personal >email is >www.rights.amnesty.org/english/signup/index.html > >If you would like to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights >mentioned here you >can find it at www.un.org/Overview/rights.html It is long but worth it. > >Please forward this message to as many people as you can. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 12:41 PM Subject: AOL.com adds alt.religion.bahai AOL.com has added alt.religion.bahai as an available newsgroup. I've heard there are a number of Bahai chatrooms and other such Bahai sites on AOL. Could someone more familiar with AOL than I am mention this improvement to others that might be interested? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 12:53 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Open letter to Frederick Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ... >Frederick-- > >>I believe the passages on my web site quoted from >>Abdu'l-Baha are quite positive about freedom of conscience >>and belief.... Other than those highly significant passages, >>I do agree Bahais have very little to offer that is not negative.... > > >You are not agreeing with me. I was criticizing your presentation, not the >Faith. And to say that Baha'is have very little to offer that is not >negative is just simply wrong. Other than those two paragraphs? So out of >Baha'u'llah's immense body of Writings, you could only find two quotes from >his son? No, there are others.... Many in support of freedom of religious conscience, speech, democracy, etc.... > >>To me, that is a pity.... Abdu'l-Baha held up a higher standard >>of respect for other people's opinions.... > > >True. But He also would never stand for people to mock or misrepresent His >father. Again, I ask you, why don't you stand up for your Prophet? When Mr >Mulligan called Baha'u'llah names, why didn't you exercise your freedom of >speech and call him on it? I am not in charge of answering every single message ever posted to arb.... Why aren't you asking this of many others? I don't condone his harsh words.... I believe it's important, though, as a number of people have said, that Bahais attempt to understand WHY someone would leave the Bahai Faith and feel as Mr. Mulligan now does.... Why are you ignoring that point of view? > >>In an atmosphere of fear and tyranny, it is naturally and >>understandable that many would be afraid to speak candidly.... For >>over a year and half, I have attempted to lay the groundwork for >>open, honest free speech in the Bahai Faith.... I believe my web site >>documents the response I and others have received from most >>Bahais.... I wish it were a different response.... > > >Your website, though, is very one-sided. Nowhere on your site do you >promote Baha'u'llah or His teachings. You have a section for the testimony >of former Baha'is, but where is your section on the testimonies of people >who are still Baha'is? Do you expect me to add a link to let's say the BCCA's site? Where is your section for copies of posts that say >positive things about Baha'u'llah? Where is your section honoring Baha'is >who have given their lives for their religion? The Baha'is have just >recently had a martyr in Iran! I can't honestly say anything positive about a religion that suppresses so systematically the conscientious thoughts and criticisms of its own members.... I don't Baha'u'llah for that, notice.... > >My point here is not to argue that Baha'is are perfect, because there are >obvious problems that need to be addressed. But for heaven's sake, there >are so many beautiful things in the religion and you never mention any of >these at all. When you said you believed in Baha'u'llah, I would assume >that at least part of your website would be dedicated to Him and His life >and teachings and you would use it to promote the Faith. Of course you can >still critique it at the same time. Please read the end of the FAQ: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >I know you won't believe this and will just brush it aside as a personal >attack, but I have to again tell you that you are not doing Baha'u'llah any >favors. You're entitled to your opinion.... I believe otherwise.... Again, I believe you have freedom of speech and all Baha'is should >have it do. Its your method I find unpleasant, not your rights! Try to get >more balance on your website. Use your website to show the world how >wonderful Baha'u'llah is, don't compare Him to L Ron Hubbard! Nowhere do I make that comparison.... If you truly >believe Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation for this age, say so loud and clear >on your website! Honestly, Frederick, anyone reading your website is not >going to want to believe in Baha'u'llah. Its like you are Ford salesman who >only says positive things about Toyotas. It will be no surprise that you >never sell any cars. > >Please take this post in the spirit it was intended. I want Baha'is to have >freedom of speech, too. Really! But your approach is not going to work. To me, you seem to be ignoring the approach of pro-srb Bahais: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm > >Peace >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 1:05 PM To: talisman Subject: AOL.com adds alt.religion.bahai For those who might be interested let me mention that America Online has finally added alt.religion.bahai as an available newsgroup.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 1:10 PM Subject: fw : LaAeterna@aol.com [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why I left -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 11:18 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why I left >Maybe my comment was a bit harsh. I just get tired of people blaming other >people's behavior for their own questionable acts. If one reads the >teachings, the fact that other Baha'is don't understand how to be spiritual is >really irrelevant. Just don't hang around them; I don't. In fact I avoid the >baha'i community like the plague; I got tired of the sanctimonious self- >righteous this-is-a-pot-luck-dinner-and chat- club really early in the game. >Granted, my ideas are not conventional when it comes to the future of the >faith, but I haven't thrown away the baby with the bath water, so to speak, as >Timothy apparently has. >Nancy > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 1:13 PM Subject: antinomies "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine." Prospero.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 1:16 PM To: Neil Kelley Subject: Re: Bogus talk.religion.bahai AOL has added arb today.... -----Original Message----- From: Neil Kelley To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Bogus talk.religion.bahai On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:14:28 -0400, in alt.religion.bahai you wrote: >Someone has recently emailed me to the effect below: >Someone has recently emailed me to the effect below: Thanks for putting me and others in the picture. BTW, while I was holiday recently I had access to an aol account and under a search of Baha'i newsgroups up came srb and trb and to my surprise no arb. Why the surprise? I had an aol account about 2 years ago and at the creation of arb I asked for it to be added to the list of groups carried. If you wish you may use this post but as before, please keep my details private. Thanks. Neil Neil Kelley https://www.nkelley.demon.co.uk A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. Shoghi Effendi. March 11, 1936. ---------- From: Bud Polk[SMTP:cybrmage@dave-world.net] Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 5:15 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Spammer blames news.groupies On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:31:32 GMT, cybrmage@dave-world.net posted in news.groups: >I realize that news.groups is limited to discussion of RFDs and CFVs. >Yet the message below challenges the integrity of news.groups and >appears to be an out right fabrication. The message claims that >unnamed "news groupies" encouraged the author to spam. The message is >available at a public archive so I did not violate any accepted >standards of usenet or email by reposting it here. > >Regards, >Bud Polk >mailto:cybrmage@dave-world.net > >FW of msg: > >________________________________________ > > >From "Frederick Glaysher" Sat Aug 15 06:06:46 >1998 >Delivered-To: listsaver-of-bahai-faith@findmail.com >Mailing-List: contact bahai-faith-owner@makelist.com >Precedence: list >X-URL: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >X-Mailing-List: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Reply-To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Delivered-To: listsaver-findlist-bahai-faith@makelist.com >Received: (qmail 4439 invoked by uid 7770); 15 Aug 1998 13:06:43 -0000 >Received: from hm3.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (207.82.250.82) > by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 1998 13:06:43 -0000 >Received: (qmail 17627 invoked from network); 15 Aug 1998 13:06:16 >-0000 >Received: from modem22.rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher.Library) >(199.179.42.122) > by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 1998 13:06:16 -0000 >Message-ID: <000301bdc84d$b41d54a0$7a2ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 >Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:07:45 -0400 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 >Subject: [bahai-faith] 150+ srb posters since banning of my sig file > > >Following the advice of news groupies on >news.groups, I've emailed directly more than 150 >people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since >the srb "moderators" imposed a moratorium on my >signature file in late May. The details of their >"decision" can be found at >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious >Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or >bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ____________________________________________________________ List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: fw Ron House [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Declaration of human rights -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 12:34 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Declaration of human rights >Petra Eissinger wrote: >> >>> You're really posting in the wrong place.... Bahais don't believe >>> in human rights unless there's something in it for them.... >> >> Frederick, >> >> do you really feel this way? >> >> I am just wondering. >> Because I am a Bahaii, not active but nevertheless, and I spend most of my >> life fighting for the rights of those that live under conditions less >> fortunate than we citizens of the capitalistic part of the world do. >> In a way , your statement insults me. >> And in a way, your statement insults your own intelligence as well. >> >I think it is really important, if someone has a criticism >of the Faith, to be very careful to say exactly what the >criticism is, rather than saying something that sounds >provocative, and I think this is a good example. Clearly, >"Bahais don't believe in human rights..." is false, as >many Baha'is, even Fred himself, believe in human rights. >Saying that only causes hurt and detracts from credibility. > >However, there is a real truth behind the remark, which >certainly could have been made forcefully and accurately, >and that is that the Baha'i Faith as an organisation has >very limited interests in social/philanthropical activities, >certainly much less than almost any mainstream Christian >church. Soon after I became a Baha'i in the seventies, I >tried to interest my community in an aid project. (Can't >remember what it was now.) The LSA said "We Baha'is have >a much GREATER task to do: set up the Baha'i World Order, >and we shouldn't divert our energies into band-aid >solutions." They voted not to help the charity. I saw >quite enough in the ensuing years to convince me that >this was a general phenomenon according to top-down >policies, not an isolated errant LSA. Some years later, >the UHJ came out with a big announcement about how now >the BF was going to get involved in charity, etc. After >that we had these various proclamations about the >environment, etc., but I still noticed that the energy >and activity went into events that directly redounded to >the credit of the Faith, and very little went into any >kind of 'hard slog' to actually help people. In another >community, I watched with great sadness as the Baha'is >bungled and disappointed a truly worthwhile charity that >was almost being given to them, and this happened because >basically they didn't care at all. > >So yes, Petra, I agree with you so far as individuals go, >but I have seen a great deal that has disappointed me >about Baha'i carelessness also. It is wrong to make >blanket statements about everyone, as you say, but equally >every organisation has a culture (with, to be sure, a >great many individuals who are exceptions), and the Baha'i >culture is, in my experience, quite cynical and uncaring >about anything less than the Grand Plan for New World Order. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 7:34 AM Subject: REPOST - FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com August 10, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities, including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access alt.religion.bahai. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 7:36 AM Subject: REPOST - To UHJ July 24, 1998 -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 9:04 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: looking for tenets of the bahai faith Richard Angelo wrote in message <35DA13D7.E22C34D1@earthlink.net>... >Hello Greg, >An authoritive web site for the Baha'i Faith is The Baha'i World at: >https://www.bahai.org/ >There you will find "an authoritive source" concerning the teachings and tenents >of The Baha'i Faith This "authoritative" site, run by the BCCA, the same organization that has attacked the formation of talk.religion.bahai twice, a fact documented on like below, is supposed to be a reliable source.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:15 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] Declaration of human rights -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Declaration of human rights >Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote: > >> I think the distinction you make between individual Baha'is and the >> organization is crucial. I have known individual Baha'is who were active in >> their communities in a variety of socially-related causes, like >> soup-kitchens, women's shelters, etc. Sadly they had to do it as >> individuals, whereas other religions would bring out their whole churches or >> synagogues (or whatever) and really make an impact. > >Hi Milissa, > >Yes, this is very true. I've been thinking long and >hard about this lately. In my early years I put in >a lot of effort to try to develop some sense of >community interest in these things, with little >result. I'd like to see the Faith really change >over the next few years. > >> I suppose the only way this is going to change is if the prohibition on >> political activity is abolished, but I don't see this happening anytime >> soon. This is quite sad, because in many cases political activism is the >> most effective way to exert change. One thing that always really bothered me >> was the prohibition to join groups like Amnesty International. > >I'd have to agree with you again here. But the Faith >is essentially no different than it was in the days >of Shoghi Effendi, apart from a truly modest slow >growth of numbers. It would be very hard for the UHJ >to make a good argument for change that wouldn't also >have applied back then. > >One problem is that Baha'is have all these wonderful >teachings about unity, but lack a coherent concept >that would guide individuals to work in accord with >a vision without needing to be told every step of >the process. I can imagine Baha'is on both sides of >every political fence if the rule were changed >the way things are at present. > >> Anyway, I hope everyone signed the petition! > >I did not. I looked up all the web sites calling for >signatures and couldn't find an on-line copy of the >declaration to read. Unless I read it, I can't be >sure I agree with it, as many things with nice names >aren't as good as their names would lead us to believe. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:18 AM Subject: fw : Ron House [bahai-faith] Every star has planets. Was: Why I left -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:01 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Every star has planets. Was: Why I left >Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote: >> >> Hi Mr Mulligan-- > >> About every planet having its creatures, I suppose that >> depends on how you define creatures: single cell organisms >> or humans? But I am still working on this one. > >This sort of issue is why I do not believe Baha'u'llah >was infallible. It seems to me that a much greater >vision of Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation arises if the >security blanket of infallibility is left behind. Here >was someone living at a time when lots of people were >still in shock that Newton had shown there was no >difference between the sub-lunar and superlunar realms, >when most thought it impious to suggest the truth that >life evolved, and yet here was someone with the wisdom >to talk rationally about life elsewhere in the universe. > >So he got it wrong? He made the important point that life >is common throughout the universe, and if people hadn't >been so caught up with the infallibility notion they >might have subjected his comments to critical study much >earlier and made faster advances in Astronomy. But a >combination of awe of his infallibility with fear of the >devastating consequences of finding him to be wrong >prevented Baha'is getting interested in the subject. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:22 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] looking for tenets of the bahai faith -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] looking for tenets of the bahai faith >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Richard Angelo wrote in message <35DA13D7.E22C34D1@earthlink.net>... >> >Hello Greg, >> >An authoritive web site for the Baha'i Faith is The Baha'i World at: >> >https://www.bahai.org/ >> >There you will find "an authoritive source" concerning the teachings and >> tenents >> >of The Baha'i Faith >> >> This "authoritative" site, run by the BCCA, the same organization >> that has attacked the formation of talk.religion.bahai twice, a fact >> documented on like below, is supposed to be a reliable source.... > >I just took a look at that site and found it quite >disgraceful, but for an unusual reason. I have set >my browser to alert me whenever a site tries to set >a cookie (a little message on your disk that holds >data that is sent back to the site to keep track of >you). For example, Amazon.com sets one when you enter >so they can keep track of your order. But this site >(which has no good reason to set ANY cookies) tries >to set about 12 cookies when you first go there and >tries to set one every two minutes. > >This is the most paranoid absurdity I have ever >seen on the net. Even hard core porn sites don't >set so many cookies. What on Earth do those bozos >think they are doing? Why do they imagine they need >to check up on readers every two minutes? > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:27 AM Subject: Re: Declaration of human rights Please read and study the observations at the end of the FAQ: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:34 AM Subject: Re: Mods Editing Posts Maryam, It's very common for the "moderators" to change people's messages without telling them. See some of the other complaints about this at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ r.woodlock@bigfoot.com wrote in message <6rc1tq$3p5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In case this doesn't make the light of SRB day >============================================== > >If the mods are going to take it on themselves to edit or change people's >posts can they at least put a marker on top of the post to indicate they have >done so eg. > >[Note the following post has been edited or changed by a moderator due to an >infraction of the SRB charter: -reason- eg. using a forbidden acronym] > >or something along those lines. I choose my words and my acronyms *very* >carefully, and whilst I know it's not *my* newsgroup, and I am sure the mods >are trying to do me a favour (rather than seeminly bouncing my posts a fair >amount of the time), so I know this seems like a gripe: but I wouldn't mind >if they edited it, so long as people *know* they edited it. (Or >alternatively bounce it back and I'll try and bend the rules a little >*grin*). > >Regards >Maryam > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:43 AM Subject: Re: Moving on Timothy, I urge you again to consider that your "leaving" would be exactly what the literal-minded fundamentalists in the Bahai Faith want.... You'd be falling into the trap of allowing them to drive you away with their banality, intimidation, and whatever.... Those of us committed to forming an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith that can't be manipulated and controlled by the censors at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere need you.... The next Timothy Mulligan to convert to the Bahai Faith needs you.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35D9F7B3.33490231@central.uh.edu>... > Well folks, I think I've put my point across during the past week. >Some of you, I know, have taken it to heart. I'll move on now. > > In the course of putting my point across, I've used sarcasm, satire, >caricature, and caustic humor. I know this hurt some of you. But these >forms of discourse are meant to hurt. It hurts to have one's deepest >convictions challenged, especially in a humorous manner. Sometimes >there is no better way to draw attention to an issue. > > You are mistaken if you take my attacks on the faith to imply an >attack on individual Baha'is. I only encountered one Baha'i last year >who really let me down. It's hard to say this without sounding >arrogant, but I'll say it anyway: I feel very sorry for people in the >Baha'i Faith. I feel sorry for people who cling to any religious faith, >to any ideology or set of dogmas. You are bound to be disillusioned. >The price of not facing disillusionment is a terrible compromise of your >integrity and freedom. > >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 6:14 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i Believers - Juneau, Alaska - 1993 Kate, Thanks for having the courage to share your story with us. As a Bahai for more than twenty years, I know it's true.... I've witnessed so many marriages ruined by the Bahai Faith or by people trying to fulfill someone else's expectations of what they as "true Bahais" should be doing.... I wish I could find some real words of consolation or encouragement but know some things in life are too bitter and full of grief.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rei9c$9oa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Baha’i Believers >Juneau, Alaska >1993 > >You have much to answer for! >Search your hearts. >May your god find mercy >just I as found heartache. > >James >Arsalan >Fred >Phil > >To the other members of that community, >(With the exception of perhaps 3-4 beautiful women: >Claudette, Cathy, and two others whose name’s escape me >but not their genuineness or their integrity) >You share the blame that I am posting here. >You share responsability for the acts committed against me >by these members listed above. > >Haifa, Doug and Samira >All of you who are above your community, >Pillars made of stone? >When you overlook such actions >You are, in fact, condoning them. >You are your Faith, your Faith is You! > >Is this how you defend those who cannot defend themselves? >To allocate them to some committee for review? >Why did I not share with you the abuse I suffered? >Think about it! Was I hiding something or was I just hiding? >Only one among you came to shelter to see if I was okay. >Who among you understands? >You granted James a year of patience >and me 5 years of pain. > >Truthfully, > >Kathleen R. Bodi >Tempe, Arizona > >P.S. To this list, first let me say, this is not intended to attack any of >you (unless your name is on this list) or your faith on any personal level. >I believe these people owe me one whopper of an apology. None of my >accusations are false or mean-spirited. It is very important to me that they >know I am here. IMHO, you should question both the believer and the faith >occasionally. Justice, equality and truth demand such. You are all *the >faith* and it's time you all realized that. Personally, I don't know how much >more patience I could take. kate > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 11:01 AM Subject: History of alt.religion.bahai The following message has been added to my web site since the question comes up so often about who created alt.religion.bahai: ----- Author: Jonathan Grobe author profile Email:grobe@netins.net Date:1997/04/03 Forums:alt.religion.bahai, alt.config, news.groups, soc.culture.iranian, alt.religion.islam, talk.religion.misc The vote for the unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai has just failed 157:691. But given that there were 157 Yes votes I believe there is sufficient interest for an alt.* group. alt.religion.bahai, a newsgroup for the discussion of the Bahai faith has just been created. The message to create the group may take from a couple hours to a few days to reach your site. Many news administrators only add new alt.* groups on user request. So if it has not been added to your site in the next few days ask your news administrator to add it: Write to him at the address news or usenet at your site or to the technical support people there (address: support)). Because of the poor propagation of new alt groups it will be a while before a significant amount of traffic shows up. [Adapted from the talk.religion.bahai proposal] RATIONALE: alt.religion.bahai All newsgroups and listservs given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. It is intended that alt.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. CHARTER: alt.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology -- and so on would be appropriate areas for discussion. Crossposting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, special-format files, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars and excessive crossposts. Articles may be crossposted to soc.religion.bahai -- subject, of course, to the approval of the moderator of that group. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. -- Jonathan Grobe ---------- From: Kathleen Bodi[SMTP:spacetoast@extremezone.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 12:30 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Believers -Juneau, Alaska - 1993 Mr. Glaysher, Thank you very much for your genuine response to this posting. I have worried that some would think me only out for revenge on anyone and everyone. I assure you that I only want those individuals to look me in the eye, search their hearts, and account for their actions. Your thoughtfulness does much to the credit of both you and the Baha'i faith. Sincerely, Kathleen R. Bodi ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:42 PM To: Kathleen Bodi Subject: Re: Baha'i Believers -Juneau, Alaska - 1993 Well, thanks, Kathleen, I hope somehow you can find some peace of mind and happiness in life despite the awful ordeal it sounds as though you've been through. You're not alone. If you can get web access to my web site, you'll see many people have gone through something like it with Bahais.... I've put your original message up on my web site. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Ex.htm Hope you don't mind! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ -----Original Message----- From: Kathleen Bodi To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i Believers -Juneau, Alaska - 1993 >Mr. Glaysher, > >Thank you very much for your genuine response to this posting. I have >worried that some would think me only out for revenge on anyone and >everyone. I assure you that I only want those individuals to look me in >the eye, search their hearts, and account for their actions. Your >thoughtfulness does much to the credit of both you and the Baha'i faith. > >Sincerely, >Kathleen R. Bodi > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:44 PM Subject: fw : Petra Eissinger [bahai-faith] Declaration of human rights -----Original Message----- From: Petra Eissinger To: Bahaii Faith mailinglist Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:04 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Declaration of human rights >>Greetings Ron and Milissa, >> >>your emails regarding the human rights issue and how Bahaii's make a stand >>toward these issues are excellent. I have to agree with both of you >>wholeheartedly. >>Bahaii's as a group do not show much effort in working together with >>non-Bahaii organizations. >>And I regret this. >>However, it is my opinion that perhaps it is all a matter of perspective. >>If I regard myself as a member of a group, then it is important what the >>group is doing (or not doing). If I regard myself primarily as an >>individual, then the group that I might belong to becomes less important. >>It is my believe that one can live a Bahaii life without having to have a >>Bahaii group backing one up. It is not so terribly important if Bahaiis as >>such officially assist Amnesty International for example. I hope that the >>individual believer makes the difference and is actively involved in human >>rights affairs. >>Perhaps then the group might follow. >> >>best regards >> >>Petra >> >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:49 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Frank Baker Subject: Fw: Your Frank? -----Original Message----- From: FG To: frankb@XN Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:38 PM Subject: Re: >Frank, > >Your message didn't make through to me. Just this >header. Give it another try.... > >Fred > > >-----Original Message----- >From: frankb@XN >Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:37 PM > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 6:29 AM Subject: fw Ron House srb censored 21 aug 98 -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:30 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Another rejection by soc.religion.bahai >I think the following is a clear case of malicious >rejection of an article by the worst of the >moderators of soc.religion.bahai. The following is >my response to the rejection slip. > >Ron House wrote: >> >> Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) wrote: >> > >> > Dear Ron: >> > You may have some good points, but you need to back up your accusations. If >> > you can add some precise instances which give you the *opinion* that there >> > has been intentional suppression of Baha'i history I will post your >> > submission. >> > The only instance you referred to was Balyuzi's book on Baha'u'llah and the >> > mention of His wives. This was a very thin book, and many things could not >> > be included. >> > Regards >> > Bill Hyman >> > co-moderator >> > soc.religion.bahai >> >> As I have pointed out to you in the past, your job >> is to post any article that meets the criteria of >> the charter for this newsgroup. It is not to decide >> whether you think the evidence provided is flimsy, >> nor is it to impose (as you do) a higher standard >> of proof on those with whom you disagree. Please >> post the message as sent, as it most certainly passes >> the test of the newsgroup charter. I remind you >> that it is not a Baha'i quality to be any less than >> impeccably proper in your dealings. >> >> > ---------- >> > From: Ron House >> > To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >> > Subject: Re: finding and leaving the Baha'i Faith >> > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:30:32 +1000 >> > >> > Scott McKEE wrote: >> > > >> > > In response to this posting, I must say I am left scratching my head. >> > > When I investigated the Baha'i Faith I was repeatedly told "not to >> > > believe anything we tell you" and that it was my responsibility to >> > > investigate for myself. This, being the Baha'i principle of >> > > 'independent investigation of truth'. Having done so, there is no one >> > > else that I can blame if I am not happy with some aspect of the >> > > faith. >> > >> > Okay, take a read - no, take an in-depth study - of, say, >> > Balyuzi's history book about Baha'u'llah. Now tell me how >> > many wives he had. Do the same with any other major >> > historical book about Baha'u'llah. It's simply a plain >> > fact that uncomfortable information is carefully >> > suppressed by so many eminent Baha'is who pretend to >> > be historians but are in reality propagandists. >> > Having taken upon themselves the right (contrary to >> > Baha'u'llah's teaching which you mention) to deny >> > others the access to the information they need in >> > order to see with their own eyes, those who hide >> > information have corrupted the Baha'i Faith. Those who >> > thought before they joined that they were being given full >> > information in good faith can hardly be blamed for changing >> > their minds when they discover this was not the case. >> > >> > -- >> > Ron House house@usq.edu.au >> > >> > Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >> > unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >> >> -- >> Ron House house@usq.edu.au >> >> Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >> unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 6:44 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Moving on (to a different tone) Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DC4BE3.1DB63696@central.uh.edu>... >Please don't take this the wrong way, Fred, but I don't want to become a >crusader like yourself. It's not in my interest to become obsessive -- an >"enemy" of the Faith I consider myself neither a crusader nor an enemy of the Faith.... I maintain that I am defending the Bahai Faith against some of its worst elements that are lowering it into a narrow, fundamentalist backwater.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ a Bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:47 AM To: Jonathan Grobe Subject: Booster for alt.religion.bahai? Jonathan, You might remember you created alt.religion.bahai on April 3, 1997 after the first interest poll failed 157 to 691. The third interest poll is coming up after August 28th, and I'm wondering if you might think it would help alt.religion.bahai's propagation if someone sent out a booster. Dejanews.com now shows that more than 14,000 messages have been post to arb since its creation. Perhaps that's enough that a booster would be irrelevant. What do you think? Incidentally, I've a couple of your message regarding its creation to my web site to document the event for newcomers. Hope you don't mind: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm AOL just recently added alt.religion.bahai and its already seems to be having a tremendous effect on participation. I thank you once again for creating arb.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Jonathan Grobe[SMTP:grobe@worf.netins.net] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 9:31 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Booster for alt.religion.bahai? I have sent out a booster message but doubt if it will do much good. Jonathan Grobe. On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Jonathan, > > You might remember you created alt.religion.bahai on > April 3, 1997 after the first interest poll failed 157 to 691. > The third interest poll is coming up after August 28th, and > I'm wondering if you might think it would help alt.religion.bahai's > propagation if someone sent out a booster. > > Dejanews.com now shows that more than 14,000 messages > have been post to arb since its creation. Perhaps that's > enough that a booster would be irrelevant. What do you > think? > > Incidentally, I've a couple of your message regarding its > creation to my web site to document the event for newcomers. > Hope you don't mind: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm > > AOL just recently added alt.religion.bahai and its already > seems to be having a tremendous effect on participation. > > I thank you once again for creating arb.... > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, > talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) > Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:00 PM To: Jonathan Grobe Subject: Re: Booster for alt.religion.bahai? Thanks. I appreciate it. You never know.... -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Grobe To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Booster for alt.religion.bahai? >I have sent out a booster message but doubt if it will do much good. > >Jonathan Grobe. > > >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Jonathan, >> >> You might remember you created alt.religion.bahai on >> April 3, 1997 after the first interest poll failed 157 to 691. >> The third interest poll is coming up after August 28th, and >> I'm wondering if you might think it would help alt.religion.bahai's >> propagation if someone sent out a booster. >> >> Dejanews.com now shows that more than 14,000 messages >> have been post to arb since its creation. Perhaps that's >> enough that a booster would be irrelevant. What do you >> think? >> >> Incidentally, I've a couple of your message regarding its >> creation to my web site to document the event for newcomers. >> Hope you don't mind: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm >> >> AOL just recently added alt.religion.bahai and its already >> seems to be having a tremendous effect on participation. >> >> I thank you once again for creating arb.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:02 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: alt.religion.bahai booster sent Thanks. I appreciate it. You never know.... -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Grobe To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Booster for alt.religion.bahai? >I have sent out a booster message but doubt if it will do much good. > >Jonathan Grobe. > > >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Jonathan, >> >> You might remember you created alt.religion.bahai on >> April 3, 1997 after the first interest poll failed 157 to 691. >> The third interest poll is coming up after August 28th, and >> I'm wondering if you might think it would help alt.religion.bahai's >> propagation if someone sent out a booster. >> >> Dejanews.com now shows that more than 14,000 messages >> have been post to arb since its creation. Perhaps that's >> enough that a booster would be irrelevant. What do you >> think? >> >> Incidentally, I've a couple of your message regarding its >> creation to my web site to document the event for newcomers. >> Hope you don't mind: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm >> >> AOL just recently added alt.religion.bahai and its already >> seems to be having a tremendous effect on participation. >> >> I thank you once again for creating arb.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >> talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >> Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:13 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker Subject: RFD? It seems to me it's time to post the RFD and get things rolling in a constructive direction. Do all of you agree? Frank, if you're serious about being a proponent, people need to hear from you as soon as possible. A more moderate voice would be a welcome note right now what with all the fury on arb lately.... Whatever Frank decides, I think too that just Ron, Fran, and I are need someone to balance out or represent the Bahais less given to thinking for themselves.... It appears those who have been around for the last year have decided to boycott this time or something like it, which will have about the same negative effect. I can't identify anyone I want to invite on board from the usual pro-srb crowd but still believe a calmer person would be a real asset. Any ideas? No hope for Susan Maneck? Fred ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 3:03 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker fran Subject: Re: RFD? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > It seems to me it's time to post the RFD and get things > rolling in a constructive direction. Do all of you agree? > > Frank, if you're serious about being a proponent, people > need to hear from you as soon as possible. A more > moderate voice would be a welcome note right now what > with all the fury on arb lately.... > > Whatever Frank decides, I think too that just Ron, Fran, > and I are need someone to balance out or represent the > Bahais less given to thinking for themselves.... It appears > those who have been around for the last year have > decided to boycott this time or something like it, which > will have about the same negative effect. I can't identify > anyone I want to invite on board from the usual pro-srb > crowd but still believe a calmer person would be a > real asset. Any ideas? No hope for Susan Maneck? > > Fred Hi Fred, I fear that Susan appears to have emerged from her absence more conservative than before. She won't do it, mainly because of putting Baha'is in the awkward position of being confronted with CB material. She also wants to believe that everything is really OK at SRB. Am I wrong, or do things seem to have loosened up a bit on SRB lately? Do you think it might be worth considering trying to pry SRB open more rather than trying for TRB again...or is that too much like giving up the ship? Have I been doing OK on ARB or too negative? --Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 8:33 AM To: abuse@hotmail.com Subject: Fw: Don't Miss These! -----Original Message----- From: bunny3722@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, August 22, 1998 3:13 AM Subject: Don't Miss These! >Attention! >Warning! Adults Only! Warning! Adults Only! > >If you are under 21 years of age, or not interested in sexually >explicit material... please hit your keyboard delete button now >and please excuse the intrusion. To REMOVE your name from our email list, simply send us email with REMOVE in the subject line. You need not read any further! > >Available NOW for only $9.95! Next 10 Days Only! > >WORLD RECORD SEX! > >Be There! See It Now On Video! Unbelievable ...But True! > >You Won't Believe Your Eyes!!! [As Seen on the Howard Stern Show] > >"The World's Biggest Gang Bang" > >See sexy Annabel Chong as she sets the world Gang Bang Record >in this fantastic video documentary that chronicles her 24 hour >sexathon with 251 men engaging in sexual intercourse and oral >sex with her! Don't worry, you won't have to stay up 24 hours >to watch it all. We've selected only the most exciting and red >hot scenes for you...all in breathtaking living color with plenty of >extreme close-ups! This video is guaranteed to knock your socks >off and leave you breathless! You've never seen anything like it! >Annabel takes on five men at a time! 90 minutes! Order Today! >Only $9.95 plus $3 shipping and handling [Total $12.95]. > > >"GANG BANG II" >The Record Breaker!!! Starring Jasmin St. Claire! > >See Beautiful and Voluptious Jasmin St. Claire shatter Annabel's >gang bang record by taking on 300 men in one 24 hour sex session! >You won't believe your eyes at all the hot firey action that you will >see as the new world record is established before your eyes as >Jasmin takes on five men at a time for sexual intercourse and >oral sex! Your friends will break down your door to see this video! >You'll be the most popular guy in town! The action is truly unreal >and you will see the best of it in living life-like color! Order Today >and see Jasmin break the record! 90 minutes. Only $9.95 plus >$3 shipping and handling [total $12.95]. > >Also Available... > >The Uncensored Authentic Underground... >Pamela Anderson Lee & Tommy Lee >Sex Video Tape! > >Everyone is talking about this exciting video! See Pam and >Tommy engaging in sexual intercourse and oral sex in the car, >on the boat and much, much more! A real collectors video! 30 minutes. >Only $9.95 plus $3 shipping and Handling [total $12.95] > >"Tonya Harding Wedding Night Sex Video" >Now see the beautiful Ice Skating Shame of the Olympics >Tonya Harding engaging in sexual intercourse and oral >sex on her wedding night with husband Jeff Gillooly! >This "Bad Girl" is Hot! Don't miss this video! 30 minutes. >Only $9.95 plus $3 shipping and handling [total $12.95] > >"Traci...I Love You" Starring Traci Lords >Now see the most beautiful and popular porn star in her last >adult video before she hit the big time! It's the blockbuster of >the year...sensual...fiery and exposive! Traci Lords in her most >erotic and controversial film ever! Don't Miss It! 90 minutes. >Only $9.95 plus $3 shipping and handling [total $12.95] > >EMAIL SPECIAL! > >ORDER ANY FOUR VIDEOS AND GET THE FIFTH ONE FREE!!! > >Your order will be shipped via First Class Mail. All Shipments in plain unmarked wrapper. >For Priority Mail - Add $5 >For Overnight Express - add $15 > >You can order by Phone, Fax, Mail or Email. > >We accept all Major Credit Cards and checks by phone or fax. >Visa - MasterCard - American Express - Discover > >10 Day Money Back Guarantee! We know that you will be pleased with these Videos! > >To Email your order - DO NOT HIT REPLY ON YOUR KEYBOARD > >Send email to our special email address below: > >knowledge9@juno.com > >[Note: If you order by email and do not receive an email acknowledgement within 24 hours, please phone our office at >718-287-3800] > >Phone our office 9am to 10 pm [eastern time] > >[718] 287-3800 to Order By Phone for FASTEST SERVICE! > > We can accept your credit card or check by phone > >Fax Your Order 24 hours per day to [718] 462-5920 >You can fax your credit card information or your check > >Order by mail by sending $12.95 per video, cash, check, money order or major credit card [Visa, MasterCard, American Express or Discover] to > >TCPS, INC. >4718 18th Ave. Suite 135 >Brooklyn, NY 11204 > >Make Checks & Money Orders Payable to TCPS, Inc. >New York State Residents Please Add 85 cents for Sales Tax per Video! > >You must be over 21 years of age to order and give us your date of birth with your order! > >The Following Order Form is for Your Convenience! > >........................................................................... .................................. > > > > >Please ship me the following video tape[s]! > >Qty___________Annabel Chong "World's Biggest Gang Bang" > >Qty__________"Gang Bang II" Jasmin St. Claire > >Qty___________"Pamela & Tommy Lee Sex Video Tape" > >Qty_________ "Tonya Harding Wedding Night Sex Video Tape" > >Qty__________"Traci I Love You" Traci Lords > >at $9.95 each plus $3.00 for shipping and handling per tape >[$12.95 per video or "SPECIAL $51.80 for ALL FIVE"! > >Credit Card #______________________________Exp Date___ > >I hereby represent that I am over 21 years of age. >My date of birth is_________________________________ > >Signature______________________________________________ > >Ship to: Name_______________________________________ > >Address____________________________________________ > >City________________________State___________Zip________ > >Area Code and Home Phone [ ]___________________________ > >Fax # [ ]______________________________________________ > >Email Address___________________________________________ > >To remove your name from our mailing list, send us an email with >remove in the subject line. This is a one time offer and you should not hear from us again! > >FOREIGN ORDERS -Add $15us if you desire Air Parcel Post Shipment. We ship all over the world. > >By deleting your unwanted E-Mail you waste one keystroke, yet >by throwing away paper mail you waste our planet! SAVE THE >TREES and support internet E-Mail instead of paper mail! > >[C] Copyright TCPS 1998 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 8:42 AM To: Timothy Mulligan Subject: Re: This is the place! -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Mulligan > Instead of pushing for talk.religion.bahai, and instead of clashing >with the SRB ayatollahs, why not do something like create an archive Web >site for alt.religion.bahai? We don't want all this good material to >fade away. Though incomplete, you might want to look at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm And then there is www.dejanews.com which archives every message posted to arb.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 8:54 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: RFD? >I fear that Susan appears to have emerged from her absence more >conservative than before. I'm not at all surprised.... She won't do it, mainly because of putting >Baha'is in the awkward position of being confronted with CB material. A falacious argument in my opinion. In the real world, it can't and won't be avoided. Bahais can't control everything.... >She also wants to believe that everything is really OK at SRB. Incredible.... > >Am I wrong, or do things seem to have loosened up a bit on SRB lately? I think you're absolutely right. This has happened before. They've allowed more controversial material on in the past at precisely moments when they needed to counteract criticism of censorship. During both votes there were definitely times when this was done. It's meaningless because it can change back just as arbitrarily and quickly.... >Do you think it might be worth considering trying to pry SRB open more >rather than trying for TRB again... It's been suggested innumerable times. I'm interested only in the creation of a medium Bahais have absolutely no control over.... or is that too much like giving up >the ship? I'd rather go down with it.... > >Have I been doing OK on ARB or too negative? Not at all.... Speak your mind. According to Abdu'l-Baha you're supposed to be entitled to it.... I think Timothy Mulligan has gone a little too far but that's only my opinion. I understand his frustration with Bahais.... > >--Fran > It's full steam ahead for me.... We really NEED Frank, though, if he's a little more moderate and the fanatics will recognize his name, if that will carry weight with them, though some will brand him a CB or traitor.... I'm going to mention the RFD now. It's got to begin. Can't hold off any longer.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 8:59 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: "Obstacles" Ahriman wrote in message <35DDD9DC.5910F09C@central.uh.edu>... > Yes, and you remind me of something I just read on the soc.religion.bahai >archives, which in turn reminded of what I was told last year: that Baha'is >are instructed, when teaching, not to put "obstacles" in the way of seekers. >In other words, Baha'is are to withhold inconvenient facts about the faith >and about Husayn Ali (alias Baha'u'llah), such as those you allude to above. >I'm telling you, as I write this, I'm getting pissed. And Baha'is have the >nerve to tell me that Husayn Ali's other wives are "irrelevant" to seekers, >when they know damned well that "seekers" will be shocked by it later on, >hopefully after the hooks are in them. You might want to take the time to plough through the material on "hikmat" and dissimulation on my site. They reveal how calculating of a technique this really is: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 9:03 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i fatwah Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DD80A9.D8A5A9E1@central.uh.edu>... > I have received from several Baha'is threats of supernatural >retribution for rejecting Husayn Ali (alias Baha'u'llah) after having >declared belief in him. Such threats are not the only kind some Bahais are capable of making. For some I've received take a look at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 9:06 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Baha'i fatwah Timothy, Let me suggest you post to arb every threating message the fundamentalists send you.... I've found over the last year and a half it's the only way to get them to stop. Of course, they'll howl about how unfair you are posting private email in public, etc., shifting the focus from their disreputable attacks to you the victim, but those of us who can still think for ourselves will know what's really going on.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 9:13 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House srb censored 21 aug 98 Please notice the technique of those who are in favor of srb censorship: the ignore blatant evidence like this suppression of Ron's message and later claim there is no censorship at soc.religion.bahai. After a year and a half of this, this technique has been quite transparent to most people. I append to this message four observations on it from the FAQ.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6rji2u$au1@news3.newsguy.com>... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ron House >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:30 AM >Subject: [bahai-faith] Another rejection by soc.religion.bahai > > >>I think the following is a clear case of malicious >>rejection of an article by the worst of the >>moderators of soc.religion.bahai. The following is >>my response to the rejection slip. >> >>Ron House wrote: >>> >>> Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Ron: >>> > You may have some good points, but you need to back up your >accusations. If >>> > you can add some precise instances which give you the *opinion* that >there >>> > has been intentional suppression of Baha'i history I will post your >>> > submission. >>> > The only instance you referred to was Balyuzi's book on Baha'u'llah and >the >>> > mention of His wives. This was a very thin book, and many things could >not >>> > be included. >>> > Regards >>> > Bill Hyman >>> > co-moderator >>> > soc.religion.bahai >>> >>> As I have pointed out to you in the past, your job >>> is to post any article that meets the criteria of >>> the charter for this newsgroup. It is not to decide >>> whether you think the evidence provided is flimsy, >>> nor is it to impose (as you do) a higher standard >>> of proof on those with whom you disagree. Please >>> post the message as sent, as it most certainly passes >>> the test of the newsgroup charter. I remind you >>> that it is not a Baha'i quality to be any less than >>> impeccably proper in your dealings. >>> >>> > ---------- >>> > From: Ron House >>> > To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >>> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>> > Subject: Re: finding and leaving the Baha'i Faith >>> > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:30:32 +1000 >>> > >>> > Scott McKEE wrote: >>> > > >>> > > In response to this posting, I must say I am left scratching my head. >>> > > When I investigated the Baha'i Faith I was repeatedly told "not to >>> > > believe anything we tell you" and that it was my responsibility to >>> > > investigate for myself. This, being the Baha'i principle of >>> > > 'independent investigation of truth'. Having done so, there is no >one >>> > > else that I can blame if I am not happy with some aspect of the >>> > > faith. >>> > >>> > Okay, take a read - no, take an in-depth study - of, say, >>> > Balyuzi's history book about Baha'u'llah. Now tell me how >>> > many wives he had. Do the same with any other major >>> > historical book about Baha'u'llah. It's simply a plain >>> > fact that uncomfortable information is carefully >>> > suppressed by so many eminent Baha'is who pretend to >>> > be historians but are in reality propagandists. >>> > Having taken upon themselves the right (contrary to >>> > Baha'u'llah's teaching which you mention) to deny >>> > others the access to the information they need in >>> > order to see with their own eyes, those who hide >>> > information have corrupted the Baha'i Faith. Those who >>> > thought before they joined that they were being given full >>> > information in good faith can hardly be blamed for changing >>> > their minds when they discover this was not the case. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Ron House house@usq.edu.au >>> > >>> > Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >>> > unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >>> >>> -- >>> Ron House house@usq.edu.au >>> >>> Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >>> unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >> >>-- >>Ron House house@usq.edu.au >> >>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> >>FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com >> > From FAQ: Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 9:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: This is the place! While I believe only a parallel unmoderated newsgroup on a Big 8 hierarchy is acceptable, I do think efforts could be made to make alt.religion.bahai more widely known. It's not in all of the search engines, for instance, when "bahai" newsgroups are searched for. I've tried unsuccessfully to get in them but may not technically be doing it right. AOL, for instance, does not list it under "Bahai" newsgroups. They tell me it first has to get into the search engines and then it will automatically appear on AOL. Any other ideas for widening the band width, if you will, would be appreciated. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DD83AE.49645D1B@central.uh.edu>... >Folks, > > I really think we need to settle in and simply enjoy >alt.religion.bahai. This is where the action is, and everybody knows >it. SRB limps along like a tortoise with three legs: it's slow, skewed >and incomplete. > > I remember when I was a Baha'i, I would swear to myself that I >wouldn't peek at alt.religion.bahai, because that's where the BAD PEOPLE >were. But inevitably, curiosity won out, and I'd lurk. Don't think for >a second that the SRB ayatollahs and Baha'i fundies aren't reading all >the juicy stuff that gets posted here. > > Instead of pushing for talk.religion.bahai, and instead of clashing >with the SRB ayatollahs, why not do something like create an archive Web >site for alt.religion.bahai? We don't want all this good material to >fade away. > >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 9:38 AM Subject: Dusting off the RFD - alt.religion.bahai Of late I've been busy getting alt.religion.bahai onto AOL.com and making it known there. Potentially, AOL's 11 million+ subscribers now have access to arb.... Also, a lot of my time has gone into notifying roughly 30 or 40 major newspapers and a couple of dozen organizations that support religious freedom and freedom of speech and conscience of the continuing atmosphere of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the approaching 3rd interest poll, working my web site (an endless project), and contacting new posters to soc.religion.bahai since I've been banned for my egregious signature file.... I'm turning now to dusting off the RFD and hope to post a rough draft in the next day or two for discussion on arb. This was done last year and news.groups saw nothing wrong with starting on a good draft on arb only.... Basically, I believe there's nothing wrong with using the last RFD with only relatively minor updating of statistics.... It's the same RFD that went through interminable discussion and revision dozens and dozens of times.... Let me mention that someone has pointed out to me in private email that soc.religion.bahai appears to have loosened up slightly by allowing a little more open discussion there recently.... I'd like to say that that has been done before periodically when they think it's necessary to appear more liberal and open than they really are. Ron House's just rejected message shows there's no change, and even if there was, it can just as easily be reversed upon a whim.... I remain committed to the creation of a free and open medium that Bahai fundamentalists and fanatics cannot manipulate or distort in any way whatsoever.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 1998 9:43 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Entry by Dupes Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DD8A20.E3B7161C@central.uh.edu>... > Have large scale enrollments in the Baha'i Faith occurred anywhere >other than in third world communities or elsewhere in communities where >the average level of education is very low? Only the ignorant have entered the Bahai Faith in large numbers.... The numbers in India, it should be observed, are significantly inflated since Indians culturally accept many religions, holy men, saints, and so on, while continuing to practice their 300,000 plus local forms of worship.... Most Bahais in the West don't understand that fact of worship in India and gullibly swallow the inflated figures as evidence of the Faiths growth.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 6:32 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: What happened to Ron They just not going to change over there.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Date: Saturday, August 22, 1998 3:56 PM Subject: What happened to Ron > >I have to back off from my optimisim about SRB. They sure >squeezed Ron's shoes with those velvet gloves of theirs! > >Fran > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 6:41 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Civil rights of covenant breakers "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 7:25 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Rough draft- RFD - alt.religion.bahai [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time.] REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. From September 28, 1997, to August 31, 1998, over 23,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per month for nine months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it since May 8, 1998. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated newsgroup. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of electronic communication." Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered by all: "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology, soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: Re: A question of Faith... Ahm.... You might want to judge anything on this newsgroup for yourself.... You might look at the web site below.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ peter bird wrote in message <6rotd6$6b4$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... > >Check out these sites https://www.bahai.org/ >or https://www.us.bahai.org/. These are the official Web sites of the >Baha'i International Community and the Baha'is of the USA. And don't pay too >much attention to what is said here in this newsgroup+ACEAIQ- > > > >Regards > >Rachael > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 7:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time.] REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. From September 28, 1997, to August 31, 1998, over 23,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per month for nine months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it since May 8, 1998. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated newsgroup. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of electronic communication." Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered by all: "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology, soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker ____________________________________________________________ List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 7:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time.] REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. From September 28, 1997, to August 31, 1998, over 23,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per month for nine months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it since May 8, 1998. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated newsgroup. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of electronic communication." Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered by all: "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology, soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 7:57 AM Subject: Re: Why I returned... Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DDB6C7.8D78E9A6@central.uh.edu > >Here's an excerpt from the SRB ayatollah's email: "I will post this if you take out the >slur against Esperanto. I know from experience that it is asking for a flame war.." Could you post to alt.religion.bahai the entire message from the "moderators" so that people may judge for themselves? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 8:16 AM Subject: Re: Dusting off the RFD - alt.religion.bahai I'd welcome any suggestions for increasing the number of people capable of hearing about the censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the approaching 3rd interest poll.... The recent addition by American Online of alt.religion.bahai seems already to have added new voices to alt.religion.bahai. I see that as a positive development. I'd like to ask everyone to check and be sure that their ISP and any other ones they know of or have access to also offer alt.religion.bahai. I was able to add alt.religion.bahai to AOL by using their free 100 hours disk to logon and simply ask a little agressively that they do so. It may have been a few other people requested it too at the same time. Note again, AOL adds more than 11 million people who can now access alt.religion.bahai if they wish.... Not yet the universal accessibility the talk.* hierarchy would provide for talk.religion.bahai but a long way in the right direction.... If you can think of anything else to expand the circle, as they say, please do it.... I myself am now working on a news release to accompany the posting of the RFD to news.groups for as many newspapers and free speech and religious organizations as possible.... I'll make it available on alt.religion.bahai for others to use too if they wish.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 4:20 AM To: mclark Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB Deceit and lies in the name of the Faith are wrong.... And so is censorship for the same specious reasons.... -----Original Message----- From: mclark To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, August 23, 1998 5:22 PM Subject: Censorship on SRB >I have certainly been subject to the above. There are one or two people who >are perhaps questionable choices for moderators. On the other hand, I have >got some fairly controversial stuff aired on SRB. Seems to me Its a question >of working out the right way to express things. > >I try to avoid elevating the misconductuct of others by calling their >actions "tests". > >"If the Remover of Difficulties were to be answered literally, most of us >would simply disappear." > >Best Wishes, > >Martin Clark >Martin Clark >https://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mclark/design.htm >(design and consultancy services) >https://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mclark/climate1.htm >(resources on climate and design in the tropics) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 5:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: a very sad person >"peter bird" writes: > >>Tim >>Can you honestly say that you have NOTHING better you could be doing with >>your time than posting total and utter waffle on this forum? He may have gone a little too far for some tastes, but he's entitled to his opinion. It's quite disrespectful and intolerant of you to deride someone like this on an open, unmoderated forum.... >>If you put as much energy that you put into being malicious, childish and >>downright boring into being a nicer person you could set the world afire >>with happiness. I fear your definition of "nicer" is none too nice in reality.... > >>And I hope you never come across someone who shows you the same disrespect >>that you show other people. You have a lot of growing up to do. You are >>such a sad person. It seems to me you're the one showing disrespect here to Timothy and this forum as well.... What a sad representative of the Bahai Faith you appear.... But so common.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 6:05 AM Subject: Re: Why I returned... Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DD7AEC.226F3A7C@central.uh.edu>... >FYI, this post of mine was bounced by soc.religion.bahai because I was disrespectful >toward Esperanto. > >(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those SRB moderators. I >tried to be very measured and moderate in this post. Seems I can't win with >Baha'is. Notice the srb "moderators" will permit many similarly phrased things to be said as long as the person is bashing something they themselves disapprove of.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >Tim Mulligan >tmulligan@central.uh.edu > >Timothy Mulligan wrote: > >> Chris, >> >> Thank you for your refreshingly thoughtful and intellectually honest post. >> >> In many respects, I think you hit the nail on the head. What's lacking in >> the Baha'i Faith is mysticism -- the direct experience of God. But you must see >> that a religion that emphasizes the mediation of a "manifestation" between God >> and humanity will naturally eschew mysticism. (Indeed, Christian mystics >> throughout the ages have often come under fire, e.g., by the Inquisition, for >> sharing their experience of God, as in the case of St. John of the Cross, as >> "pure nothingness," without mentioning the humanity of Christ [which St. Theresa >> of Avila insisted upon always remembering, perhaps to immunize her own mysticism >> against charges of heresy]). Instead, we find in the Baha'i Faith what the >> Bhagavad Gita calls "bhakti," or devotional religion, with Baha'u'llah as the >> object of devotion. >> >> As you may have noticed, in several of my many posts over the past week, >> I've recommended _The Perennial Philosophy_ by Aldous Huxley, at title with >> which I'm sure you are familiar. In that book, Huxley presents the kernal of >> all great religious traditions as being an essentially mystical experience. The >> exoteric features of religions, Huxley points out, are ultimately hindrances in >> realizing the Divine. They may not even be particularly good at *preparing* >> souls for the mystical journey. I think the Baha'i Faith bears witness to this >> truth as much as any religion. Its extreme focus on evangelization, >> proselytism, "teaching," gaining converts, call it what you will, shifts the >> energy of its adherents toward pure exotericism, i.e., the outward features of >> the religion. Even the existence of scriptures like _The Four Valleys and the >> Seven Valleys_ doesn't compensate for this focus -- it simply exists as a kind >> of non sequitur. >> >> Many have argued, as you argue, that religions are necessary for an orderly >> civilization. For instance, from the secular world, F.A. Hayek, the great >> economist, in his book _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_, goes to >> great lengths to point out that moral and religious systems evolve much like >> language evolves, and that they evolve as they do because they serve a real >> human need. They cannot, Hayek says, be dismantled without severe societal >> consequences. Hayek makes this argument while insisting that he is an agnostic. >> >> Actually, the Baha'i Faith violates Hayek's principles, because it >> constitutes a kind of "social engineering." Although some evolution of its >> institutions is envisioned, still, the form of the future "World Order" is >> supposedly set out by the Central Figures. That's the kind of thing (in the >> form of socialism and central planning) that Hayek was arguing against. It is >> as futile as developing a language out of whole cloth (e.g., Esperanto -- where >> the heck is *that* going??), although here, I would make an exception for >> American Sign Language. >> >> So while I agree with you, Chris, that organized religion serves an >> important societal purpose, I can't agree that the Baha'i Faith even succeeds, >> or will succeed, on that level. As von Hayek might have said, it's too >> "engineered," too "pre-fabricated." Morever, given its exoteric emphasis, the >> spiritual experience of its members is more a type of "bhakti," or even less >> than that -- an emotionalism -- that merely reinforces the ego, the false self, >> instead of dismantling it in preparation for Divine Union in this life. >> >> As a student of mysticism, I'm sure you know that the true goal of human >> life is to "lose the self," and to allow God to live in us. There are many >> insidious ways in which the ego, the self, perpetuates itself. One of these is >> through grasping an identity ("I am a Baha'i"), and even through "doing good." >> This is a very subtle matter, difficult to explain in a Usenet post. I >> certainly don't understand it myself, let alone live it (as you can tell from my >> nasty Usenet posts). >> >> So my position, to sum up, is this: (1) organized religion *is* necessary >> to civilization, or else it would not have evolved; (2) the Baha'i Faith, to the >> extent that it is already "engineered" and pre-fabricated, may not even serve >> the traditional civilizing role of the "evolved" and, hence, integrated, >> religions; (3) my personal spiritual growth can only really occur through a >> mystical path, not exoteric religion, and is probably not consistent with the >> needs of society at large. >> >> I welcome further dialog on this issue. >> >> Tim Mulligan >> tmulligan@central.uh.edu >> >> Chris L. Donaldson wrote: >> >> > Hello Everyone: >> > First of all, let me apologize up front for the length of this message. >> > Also, if you're a brand new Baha'i, read no further and might I suggest you >> > unsubscribe from your Baha'i related news groups for at least a year...and >> > deepen as best you can within your local community. >> > I left the Baha'i Faith officially a little over a year ago. I returned last >> > month. When I left, I had no desire to publicly renounce and dispute the >> > Faith on the news groups. It was a personal decision that I did not wish to >> > air. Be that as it may, I would have agreed with many of Tim Mulligan's >> > comments ( though Baha'u'llah's stature never really was an issue with me). >> > >> > Although I left quietly, I did instigate a discussion string addressing >> > similar subjects as Tim's regarding "Baha'i Mysticism" and the apparent lack >> > of communal Baha'i spirituality see >> > https://www.bcca.org/services/srb/archive/950721-951020/0599.html >> > I only >> > bring this up because some of the responses I received then are relevant >> > here. A number of the responses suggested that my feelings and observations, >> > though they certainly were valid, reflected an emptiness within myself and >> > at the very least, indicated a personal responsibility for me to make >> > positive change in that direction within my local Baha'i community. At the >> > time, I thought these responses callous and diversionary, but the last year >> > or so has played them out. In that time, I returned to Christianity only to >> > find what I thought were "Baha'i shortcomings" followed me no matter what >> > church community I joined. The historical inconsistencies continued to >> > plague my intellect and the spiritual void returned with all its loneliness >> > and isolation. Hummm... >> > Over the year, I found myself "lurking" in the Baha'i new groups again (I >> > see a few other ex-Baha'is are doing the same), hitting every "why I am a >> > Muslim and not a Baha'i" web page I could find, and getting strangely >> > excited every time something of the Baha'is appeared in the media. To make a >> > long story a little shorter, I never really left the Baha'i Faith in my >> > heart. I only separated myself from what I then thought was a superficial >> > and tedious community. I wrote the NSA and got my card back. Enough said on >> > that. >> > Now, lest you think I'm basking in my newly found Baha'ihood, let me share >> > with you a few observations I bring with me from the deserts of religious >> > nomadism. I realize that the majority of you, being devout Baha'is, will not >> > agree with many or most of my points, but I'm not talking to you right now. >> > Go to the next message quickly before the seeds of doubt are planted. For >> > the rest of the lurkers, ex-Baha'is and dogma cynics, consider that: >> > The existence of a personal God maybe up for debate, but Man's >> > insatiable search for the meaning of self-consciousness and a collective >> > ground to give direction is not. It is a part of our history. >> > - The god that can be explained with words, or pointed to by religion, or >> > imaged in mind or print is not God. It comes from our own limited >> > understanding of reality and does not transcend Man as it must. The sooner >> > we move past the simplistic notion of a creator god moving around >> > souls/cities/ nations and building religions as interpreted in the >> > Judeo-Christian era the better >> > - Religion is a creation of Man, for Man to understand and draw nearer to >> > this collective ground and to provide structure and community for our >> > personal search. Period. Mankind has achieved many great things throughout >> > history; the many religious vehicles for our spirituality being among them. >> > The best of what we have become and created could be "of God" but is not by >> > God. Because these religions are culturally driven created man-made >> > structures, under minute scrutiny the cracks and flaws invariably appear, >> > the Baha'i Faith included. >> > - These religious structures do seem to be necessary for the majority of >> > Mankind to progress spiritually (morally, ethically?). Without them, Man is >> > reduced to a maelstrom of "isms", whether it be nihilism, narcissism, etc. >> > Regardless, over time the end result is spiritual stagnation and moral >> > degradation. Tim, we need religious community to grow! >> > - So, we need religion. The manifestations and siants, as we recognize the >> > stations, build them for us. Life moves on and civilization, hopefully, >> > moves forward. >> > - These manifestations (and institutions), though highly polished mirrors, >> > are fallible; take a close look at any mirror! Writings contradict one >> > another, stations are assumed by more than one person, Guardians die before >> > appointing new ones. In the meantime the hungry starve, the poor suffer, the >> > oppressed languish and die. >> > - A few poor and hungry souls might figure out that religious structures >> > have very little to do with the reality of God. These individuals stop >> > talking and reading and fighting and reforming and arguing...and they start >> > listening. They cultivate the silence in their own mind and hearts so that >> > the truths that may have been present there all along can be heard, >> > experienced and to a limited degree shared. This is the life-giving pulse of >> > any religion and is the one facet of the Baha'i Faith I have found most >> > lacking. >> > - Strangely, the Baha'i literature is seeped in and demands this mystical >> > relationship with God. I think the Americanization if the Baha'i Faith, >> > though doing much to progress the cause by numbers and organization, has >> > come at a great cost. >> > Can a Baha'i think like this? To sum things up, I think so. What's more, >> > we need the Tims of the Faith not to leave but to be recognized and >> > encouraged to stay and provide a rational and critical spingboard from which >> > to grow our religion. We have inherited allot of baggage from our Jewish, >> > Christian, and Muslim brothers and sisters. Baggage that they are going to >> > have to deal with if they are going to survive into the 21st century, see >> > Bishop Spong's call for christian reformation at >> > https://www.intac.com/~rollins/jsspong/reform.html >> > . But the Baha'is are >> > not immune. We may have a really up-to-date list of "equalities" to get us >> > into the new era, but the spiritual maturity of our people remains an issue >> > with which every Baha'i institution from the Universal House of Justice on >> > down will have to >> > recognize and respond. >> > Thanks for your patience ...Allah'u'abha >> > Chris > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 6:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Why I returned... Roger Reini wrote in message <35e23486.145308523@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 07:57:21 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >>Could you post to alt.religion.bahai the entire message from >>the "moderators" so that people may judge for themselves? > >I would not encourage the posting of private correspondence without >the consent of the other party. Failure to do this is a violation of >netiquette, IMHO. When censorship is involved, the only alternative is to post the message and let the light of day reveal who is truly at fault. The "moderators" are manipulating their stranglehold over their little corner of Usenet and should not be allowed to do so.... Their violation, notice, is not at all address by Mr. Reini or other Bahais who abuse the good will of people on Usenet to continue to justify and make excuses for tyranny on soc.religion.bahai. By all means, Timothy, post in full the relevant messages and let people judge for themselves.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >Summaries and paraphrases are OK, but direct quotes are out. And even >summaries might be questionable, depending on the material contained >in it (i.e., don't post it if it'd betray a confidence). > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 6:16 AM Subject: Re: Gotcha! More Baha'i double-speak Kent Johnson wrote in message <6rp5jj$6bk$1@as4100c.javanet.com>... > >Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35DD9B5D.A5EA1E5A@central.uh.edu>... > >>But let me make a broader point: religion in >>general engenders fanaticism in a significant minority. > >If you had stayed a Baha'i we could have judged the Baha'i Faith on your >actions. But since you withdrew we can only judged cowardly, insignificant, >cynics by your actions. > >--Kent It should be noted here that Kent's rudeness and nastiness goes unconfronted by the pro-srb Bahais on alt.religion.bahai, in true conformance to the "Bahai technique" of brow-beating.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 6:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Innate Depravity (was Re: Baha'i Believers - Juneau, Alaska - 199) Dool Tracy wrote in message <1998082214502600.KAA21826@ladder01.news.aol.com>... > > >Fredrick - youve been a Bahai for 20 years??? > >Gosh - I thought you were a new Bahai with a bit too much fervor. > >This is interesting. It means essentially that you accept the faith, but also >see the imperfections present in the system. > >Not that its any of my business, but is this the case? I believe in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, His Covenant, not that of the fanatics on soc.religion.bahai, and his Purpose for humankind.... Alas, as far as I've ever been able to discern, he makes no claims of ultimately removing the lamentable imperfections of human nature.... Though literal-minded Bahais think otherwise.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House srb censored 21 aug 98 xensky@aol.com wrote in message <6rptvi$lqh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6rmg4a$kct@news3.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> Please notice the technique of those who are in favor of srb >> censorship: the ignore blatant evidence like this suppression >> of Ron's message and later claim there is no censorship at >> soc.religion.bahai. After a year and a half of this, this technique >> has been quite transparent to most people. I append to this >> message four observations on it from the FAQ.... >(snip) > >What is transparent to *me* is that I can't let my combativeness >and *many* of my negative traits loose on srb! Thankfully, I am >allowed, due to your dedication Fred, here in arb, to be as >nasty and argumentative and as un-Baha'i-like as I please. Yay. > >Jude Notice here too we have the pro-srb Bahais indulging in and condoning "points for our side," insults, and other such attacks against me and others, not addressing the real issue of censorship on soc.religion.bahai.... Rather, as usual, demonizing people who have the courage to say the emperor has no clothes, as Juan Cole is wont to phrase it.... For anyone new to alt.religion.bahai, you might wish to look at the end of FAQ where this Bahai technique is thoroughly documented and analyzed: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 3:11 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: RFD? Fred, I realize that I have not been particularly communicative, but I am still with you. I believe in the idea of an open and widely available forum and want to support the effort to create one (TRB) that is more easily and universally accessible that ARB. I realize, however, that I will do the effort no good if I am not visible on the newsgroups. With the goal of establishing that presence, I am deliberately devoting time to the newsgroups these days. I posted a comment to ARB yesterday, another today, and will endeavor to participate regularly. I am also watching SRB and will participate in that forum as appropriate. Once I have established a credible presence, I would like to act as a proponent for TRB. Regards, -- Frank At 02:13 PM 8/21/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >It seems to me it's time to post the RFD and get things >rolling in a constructive direction. Do all of you agree? > >Frank, if you're serious about being a proponent, people >need to hear from you as soon as possible. A more >moderate voice would be a welcome note right now what >with all the fury on arb lately.... > >Whatever Frank decides, I think too that just Ron, Fran, >and I are need someone to balance out or represent the >Bahais less given to thinking for themselves.... It appears >those who have been around for the last year have >decided to boycott this time or something like it, which >will have about the same negative effect. I can't identify >anyone I want to invite on board from the usual pro-srb >crowd but still believe a calmer person would be a >real asset. Any ideas? No hope for Susan Maneck? > >Fred > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 5:48 AM Subject: Re: a very sad person peter bird wrote in message <6rs6ea$50g$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6rrd4v$j7q@news3.newsguy.com>... >>>"peter bird" writes: >>> >> >>He may have gone a little too far for some tastes, but he's >>entitled to his opinion. It's quite disrespectful and intolerant >>of you to deride someone like this on an open, unmoderated >>forum.... > > >It's ok for him to do it - I've only been on this newsgroup for 2 weeks - >and in that time I have lost count of his 'postings' - Occasionally, someone happens by who has a lot pent up and it all comes spewing out.... They usually settle down after a while.... He's made some very good contributions around here and shouldn't just be condemned, as some have done. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 5:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: a very sad person peter bird wrote in message <6rsl0k$il1$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... what I don't agree with is unprovoked open attacks >on people just because you've had one (or serveral) bad experiences with >Baha'is. Do you condone "unprovoked open attacks" by the srb moderators? They've attacked many people merely for their ideas, indeed even their spelling and phrasing! They've banned me for my signature file pointing eventually to Yahoo's Bahai page.... What I find unconvincing in such views as yours is that they never include a just critique of the pro-censorship Bahais.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:18 AM Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <35e33561.145527233@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 07:32:13 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time.] >> >> >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai >>As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, >>it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious >>Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it >>since May 8, 1998. >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >Personally, I don't think that the number of Web site hits is relevant >to the formation of a newsgroup. It doesn't matter what site it is. It is indicative of interest, good or bad, doesn't matter. It may be something that shouldn't be included though really. I'd like to run it by the news.groupies just for the sake of curiosity and see what they think. Probably have to drop it then.... >>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. > >I am concerned by the inclusion of this statement, especially in the >charter. It seems to give the impression that the newsgroup would be >primarily for the benefit of Covenant breakers. In the light of past >experience, I am sure this is not the intent. However, for those >unfamiliar with the history of the proposal, they might see things >differently. > >I am not questioning the words of the Guardian here, only their use in >this proposal in this context. IMHO, its inclusion will not persuade >individuals to vote Yes but will rather persuade them to either >abstain or to vote No. I confess that I would have a hard time >endorsing the proposal if it contained this quote. Now here may be an important issue this time around.... Mr. Bill Hyman, a moderator at soc.religion.bahai, for one, has been adamant that ANY unmoderated newsgroup should be opposed because it would allow Bahai covenant breakers a forum in which to express themselves.... This is in contradistinction to the UHJ stating in unequivocal terms that it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum. Mr. Hyman and Bahais of similiar thinking, I believe, are violating the preservation of the civil rights of covenant breakers instituted by Shoghi Effendi himself and implicit in the UHJ's approval of an unmoderated forum. I'm baffled, Roger, why you would be opposed to the words of Shoghi Effendi.... I believe they help to clarify the issue and should certainly now be included in the RFD along with the key sentence from the UHJ allowing Bahais to participate in unmoderated forums. I fail to see how or why Bahais would oppose the words of Shoghi Effendi himself.... >>An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be >>considered by all: [clip] >Perhaps this might belong in an Informational area rather than as part >of the procedure. News groupies wanted it here last time. I don't really care where we put it as long as we keep it since it reminds Bahais why a massive NO vote violates Usenet procedure and would speak poorly for the Faith.... > >The rest of the procedure looks fine to me. Thanks, Roger. Actually, of course, it's the RFD from January 12, 1998, the last posted and voted on. For those who want to look at it in its entirety it's on my web site. I'll try to put up the working drafts as we move along so that we don't get lost in the material so to speak. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm I'm open to changes on this RFD. I can't think what they would be after more than a year revising and revising and revising this one.... Many people around now didn't participate in that process as we have, Roger, so it may look new to them whereas I suspect it's a little tiresome to us both.... Oh well, whatever. We can all tinker around with this and change it as befits the present occasion.... Suggestions? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:24 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Ron House Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai I'm forwarding this back again to bahai-faith@makelist.com to make sure Ron knows I've posted this to arb and his suggestions are open for discussion. -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, August 23, 1998 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: >> >> soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, >> soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, >> soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, >> soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology, >> soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism, >> talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion, >> uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, >> uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship >> >You might like to add: > >alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated >alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.last-days, >alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, aus.religion.christian >alt.religion.christian.pentecostal >alt.religion.vaisnava >alt.philosophy.debate >alt.individualism >talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism >talk.atheism >talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:36 AM To: Ron House; Fran Baker Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: RFD? Alas, I've had the same experience with all of them.... >I haven't had discussions with that moderator, only Mr >Boatwright and that other one. Boatwright is not sufficiently >broadminded, but I think he does try, and he will discuss >things looking for a solution. The other one is just plain >nasty, and, IMHO, deliberately trying to place obstacles >in the paths of those he doesn't agree with. No hard >things can be discussed in that atmosphere. > >> Do you find you are able to express the full range of your >> opinions in any other Baha'i forum (mailing list, meetings, >> etc.)? > >I've never tried. I don't belong to any of them. The day >might come when I have to join, though. Ron, let me suggest you consider subscribing to at least the bahai-discuss mailing list. It's the one I have archived at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm If you look at the "samplers" and BCCA messages, I think you'll be shocked at what has gone on during the last two votes off stage so to speak. The people on bahai-discuss have EXTREMELY fanatical or literal minds.... > >> What would happen if someone started an uncensored >> Baha'i newsletter (just did it, didn't try to get official >> approval)? Would they be considered CBs? Have admin rights >> taken away? > >They can NOT declare you a covenant breaker under those >circumstances. If the UHJ ordered you to stop and you >disobeyed, they _might_ be able to if they thought you >had shown disregard for the covenant. Even admin rights >could only be removed following an order you disobeyed. >Personally, I seriously doubt that they would try to >do either thing. After all, the UHJ has written (Fred has >the quote) that Baha'is may participate in unmoderated >discussion forums. Practice on talisman I and II though suggests otherwise. A number of people have been dragged in front of one counselor or another for the messages in such private informal forums. Some have been denounced as cb's, driven out of the Faith, lost their rights, etc.... THAT's the record of actual practice not public statement or theory.... Let me mention I hope Frank can join us too. We need him! Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:38 AM Subject: fw Ron House [bahai-faith] Why I returned...[private email] -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, August 24, 1998 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Why I returned... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Roger Reini wrote in message <35e23486.145308523@news.newsguy.com>... >> >On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 07:57:21 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" >> > wrote: > >> >>Could you post to alt.religion.bahai the entire message from >> >>the "moderators" so that people may judge for themselves? >> > >> >I would not encourage the posting of private correspondence without >> >the consent of the other party. Failure to do this is a violation of >> >netiquette, IMHO. >> >> When censorship is involved, the only alternative is to post >> the message and let the light of day reveal who is truly at fault. > >Fred is correct. Although posting email is against >Netiquette, a moderator attempting to prevent others >hearing your message should be rejecting it for a >valid reason according to the newsgroup charter. >The question of private confidences being violated >simply doesn't arise. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:44 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: RFD? I haven't seen this on arb. Could you post it there too? Or revise it any way you want to find there? It might be good to share it too in that direction, if you agree.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, August 23, 1998 11:55 PM Subject: Re: RFD? >>From house@usq.edu.au Sun Aug 23 21:11:40 1998 >>The moderators are inconsistent. But one of them >>is, IMHO, both narrow-minded and malicious. There >>is no way that the things that need to be said >>over the next few crucial years can be said on >>srb. >> >>-- >>Ron House house@usq.edu.au >> >>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >It's hard to have an honest discussion in a forum that is not >committed to honesty but rather to making a good impression >on potential converts and "protecting" current members from >different points of view. You and I have both been on the >receiving end of this kind of moderating, and it was not >the same moderator. Mine was not malicious, but she gave >me the same sort of condescending, narrow-minded brush-off. > >Do you find you are able to express the full range of your >opinions in any other Baha'i forum (mailing list, meetings, >etc.)? What would happen if someone started an uncensored >Baha'i newsletter (just did it, didn't try to get official >approval)? Would they be considered CBs? Have admin rights >taken away? > >--Fran > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: Jonathan Grove - booster message fyi Jonathan Grobe author profile email reply view thread post new · post reply subscribe Email: grobe+news@netins.net Date: 1998/08/21 Forums: alt.config, alt.religion.bahai view for bookmarking · text only ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- For your newsgroups file: alt.religion.bahai Bahai faith. This is a booster newgroup message for alt.religion.bahai. Since it was created in April of 1997 there have been over 14,000 posts to the group. [Adapted from the talk.religion.bahai proposal] RATIONALE: alt.religion.bahai All newsgroups and listservs given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. It is intended that alt.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. CHARTER: alt.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology -- and so on would be appropriate areas for discussion. Crossposting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, special-format files, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars and excessive crossposts. Articles may be crossposted to soc.religion.bahai -- subject, of course, to the approval of the moderator of that group. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. -- Jonathan Grobe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Sponsored by Netscape Join The Discussion Now! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 6:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai Frank Baker wrote in message <6rvt2l$f2f$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>... > >Roger Reini wrote in message <35e33561.145527233@news.newsguy.com>... >>On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 07:32:13 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" >> wrote: >>> >...[snips for space] >>> >>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. >> >>I am concerned by the inclusion of this statement, especially in the >>charter. It seems to give the impression that the newsgroup would be >>primarily for the benefit of Covenant breakers. In the light of past >>experience, I am sure this is not the intent. However, for those >>unfamiliar with the history of the proposal, they might see things >>differently. >> >>I am not questioning the words of the Guardian here, only their use in >>this proposal in this context. IMHO, its inclusion will not persuade >>individuals to vote Yes but will rather persuade them to either >>abstain or to vote No. I confess that I would have a hard time >>endorsing the proposal if it contained this quote. > >Shoghi Effendi's statement strikes me as an important element of >the RFD as it addresses one of the more serious objections to the >creation of TRB. As a life-long Baha'i, its inclusion does not bother >me. > >-- Frank And the only reason I think it should be included is because the passage does indeed address precisely that concern.... Blaming me or alt.religion.bahai in general for the fact that some covenant breakers have posted here and would to talk.religion.bahai is not a valid reason for opposing either one. They are entitled to excercise their freedom of speech, if they so choose, and Bahais should not deprive them of their basic civil rights. Apparently, Shoghi Effendi thought so too.... Roger, I can't figure out what words of mine I attributed to you. Didn't mean to misquote. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:01 AM Subject: Re: What makes me so angry Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35E32E9F.20955582@central.uh.edu>... > I can leave now. At least please check back in here in three weeks or so and actually VOTE to create talk.religion.bahai! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:07 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Unfulfilled prophecy Timothy Mulligan wrote in message <35E2DD81.B1FCAA58@central.uh.edu>... > Would someone please provide details about the unfulfilled prophecy >that was allegedly deleted from _Baha'u'llah and the New Era_? Thanks. The 1927 edition has the prophecy that the Lesser Peace would come in 1957.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:19 AM To: bahai-faith-reject-m8@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: REPOST - FAQ ver. August 26, 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com August 26, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@makelist.com at the same time you post to alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Other people with only web access might use www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities, including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access alt.religion.bahai. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they have experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, the record on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith gives reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm Early April 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, inflaming Bahai passions against trb, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample views on talk.religion.bahai: Donald Zhang Osborn: "A new newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, would help provide another venue for discussion of this religion (there are already, for instance, x Christian newsgroups, y Islamic ngs, z Buddhist ngs, &c), as well as a non-moderated venue for organic implementation of Baha'i prescriptions for constructive interaction and interchange in this shrinking world. As the latter, t.r.b. might serve a secondary purpose as a sort of evolving example of the application of virtues in the cyber environment (understanding that not all participants in t.r.b. would be Baha'i, and that some may even utterly disregard appeals for decency, but that virtues must be applied by Baha'is and others in all sorts of environments)." Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:31 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: REPOST - To Bahai UHJ July 24, 1998 -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 >July 24,1998 > >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet >another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements >made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly >of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in >The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally >lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President >Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran >would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international >community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek >justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." > >The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation >of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, >always courting the President and other members of the government, >has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context >of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human >and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as >I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, >available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine >Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai >Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at >Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, >Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within >the Bahai community and administration. > >To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more >than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications >Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat >twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an >unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as >talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of >these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and >non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is >approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the >BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private >Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of >discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by >many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in >that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under >Bahai-Discuss Archives. > >Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has >approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for >more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding >talk.religion.bahai. > >The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and >religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot >but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai >administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. > >I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and >what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if >you will, of Bahai censorship? > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > >cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:51 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai Let me add that I've quoted Shoghi Effendi in an attempt to answer the concern expressed by Bill Hyman below: -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: [clip] I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman (full message at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb42.htm ) During the entire year and a half of discussion attempting to pass talk.religion.bahai, this concern about covenant breakers has come up repeatedly as the excuse why many Bahais are opposed to it. Mr. Hyman's name can be found on the NO voters list for the second vote: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/NOvoters.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai Let me add that I've quoted Shoghi Effendi in an attempt to answer the concern expressed by Bill Hyman below: -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: [clip] I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman (full message at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb42.htm ) During the entire year and a half of discussion attempting to pass talk.religion.bahai, this concern about covenant breakers has come up repeatedly as the excuse why many Bahais are opposed to it. Mr. Hyman's name can be found on the NO voters list for the second vote: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/NOvoters.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 8:09 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai >>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. >> Roger Reini wrote: I also have heard this opinion expressed by several individuals. And there is truth in it, for CB's and followers of CB's have posted to alt.religion.bahai in the past. I respond: Shoghi Effendi stated in unequivocal terms that they have every right to post ANYWHERE they so wish. I would say on soc.religion.bahai too. To bar them constitutes a clear violation of their civil rights. I believe a court of law would or will ultimately rule along these lines.... Roger wrote: The exact quotation is: "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of electronic communication." (letter to an individual believer, Oct. 14 1997). IMHO, this cannot and should not be taken as a specific endorsement of the talk.religion.bahai proposal. I respond: It was in a message that WAS a specific response to the message you yourself stated online you had emailed them.... The context was talk.religion.bahai and that should not be lost sight of. That their message has obviously broader application is true too and worth noting. Roger wrote: The term "civil rights" apply to rights recognized by governments. Usenet is not a government or a nation in the sense that the United States is, so I feel that "civil rights" are not at issue here. I doubt many people would agree with you. You seem to be spliting hairs here as the expression is.... Civil rights extend to all areas of life including Usenet. Roger wrote: Let us not forget that CB's can and have posted to other newsgroups in the past. I respond: It's one of their civil rights to do so if they so wish. Bahais have no right to deprive them and non-Bahais of their rights to free expression by massively voting NO, as was done in the first vote, or by scheming in private Bahai-only forums, as was done on bahai-discuss during both votes, to defeat forums they and others would use.... I wrote: >I'm baffled, Roger, why you would be opposed to the >words of Shoghi Effendi.... Roger wrote: I am not. I only object to their being used in this instance. I respond: It's still not clear why you're opposed.... They address exactly Bill Hyman's and others' objections to trb.... Roger wrote: Whereas I believe that, in this context, their use may antagonize the friends, who will be less likely to support the proposal. IMHO, without the support of enough of the friends, the proposal will fail. I respond: Why should the very words of Shoghi Effendi himself "antagonize" Bahais? The address the very issue they claim to care about so much.... Roger wrote: Whether the quote is used or not, anybody will still be able to post to t.r.b, including CB's. If it will make no difference, then what better way to demonstrate it than by not mentioning it at all? I respond: They have ever right to exercise their civil rights as they see fit. Bill Hyman and others have continually insisted this issue must be answered. Given the nature of the Faith, only the Writings ultimately count in terms of authority. Here is a passage of unquestionable authority that addresses the issue. I would think you and others Bahais would rush to support the guidance of Shoghi Effendi.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 7:12 AM Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai [fw Ron House] -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> >>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >> >>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. >> >> > >> Roger wrote: >> The term "civil rights" apply to rights recognized by governments. >> Usenet is not a government or a nation in the sense that the United >> States is, so I feel that "civil rights" are not at issue here. >> >> I doubt many people would agree with you. You seem to be >> spliting hairs here as the expression is.... Civil rights extend >> to all areas of life including Usenet. >> >Fred is, IMHO, correct. People have a civil right to >walk down the street because streets are an indispensible >part of modern life, yet streets were originally a novel >item created at great cost. Similarly, the one and only >public electronic medium, the Internet, is at present >novel, but is nearly already, and will become more so, an >indispensible part of life. To deny certain people full >functionality on this medium is certainly a violation >of civil rights. Remember that many parts of the Internet >are financed by _everyone's_ taxation. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 7:18 AM To: Newsmaster AOL.com Cc: techpro Subject: Fw: AOL Forum Leader censoring content? Can you please help the situation under Keyword Bahai in the Forum? FG@AOL.com -----Original Message----- From: RMckin6046 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 4:33 PM Subject: Re: AOL Forum Leader censoring content? >FYI Fred: > >The Baha'i Faith Forum on AOL has had a lot of problems in the past 8+ months. >Sometime around December 97, the format of the Forum changed to bring it into >conformity with other interest forums on AOL. > >Many of the changes were for the better. One could now use colors and font >changes to express one's point. The ability to choose folders for reading >off-line was added, and there was much more flexibility in setting preferences. > You can now set up how far back to show entries and the order, etc.... > >However, there have been some major drawbacks that plague the Forum and make it >less user-friendly and a lot less popular. No where near as much discussion >takes place now as before the change. > >The biggest drawback on the BFForum is the inability to open new "folders." >Before, if a folder was unused for a length of time -- 10 - 20 days I believe >-- it would be deleted. This would leave room for new folders to be opened. >At the changeover, we were frozen in time with the folders that existed. What >a disappointment!! We have some pretty lame folders that had just been set up. > And, there are others -- such as the ones on "Thanksgiving" and "Day of the >Covenant" -- which were time sensitive and are not very useful now. At >different times prior to the changeover, we had had folders that deepened on >the Administrative Order, on the Hands of the Cause, on Science and Religion, >etc... There was a folder entitled "Orthodox Baha'is" that was used by that >group to post news, etc. And there had been several on subjects that the BUPC >[Baha'is under Provisions of the Covenant] used to forward their claims. Now, >we are stuck for over 8 months with a folder entitled "Wide" which has no >purpose -- good or bad. And, another set up just before the switch called >"Truth about Baha'is" that was set up by a critic of the Faith who wished to >advertise his brand of Islam. I could go on. > >In addition, since the changeover, there have been no successful up-loads to >the Baha'i Faith Forum Library. I, too, have tried to upload some things that >I had promised others I would. [And, since you would normally lump me in with >"pro-SRB" Baha'is and Baha'i "fundies" --- I believe you called me an old >schoolmarm once -- you know it wasn't a matter of censorship on the part of the >host.] > >Mark Foster was the new Forum Leader appointed just prior to the switch-over, >but he seems genuinely concerned and unable to do anything about the situation. > Rest assured, we have complained many times to AOL. So far, our concerns have >fallen on deaf ears. > >My best to you... Richard >------------------------------------------ >Dr Richard A McKinley >Fayetteville NC USA >RMckin6046@aol.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 7:19 AM Subject: Re: AOL Forum Leader censoring content? I've forwarded your message with a note to the Newsmaster@AOL.com and techpro@aol.com in hope that one of them can do something about the situation. FG@aol.com RMckin6046 wrote in message <1998082620333200.QAA23791@ladder01.news.aol.com>... >FYI Fred: > >The Baha'i Faith Forum on AOL has had a lot of problems in the past 8+ months. >Sometime around December 97, the format of the Forum changed to bring it into >conformity with other interest forums on AOL. > >Many of the changes were for the better. One could now use colors and font >changes to express one's point. The ability to choose folders for reading >off-line was added, and there was much more flexibility in setting preferences. > You can now set up how far back to show entries and the order, etc.... > >However, there have been some major drawbacks that plague the Forum and make it >less user-friendly and a lot less popular. No where near as much discussion >takes place now as before the change. > >The biggest drawback on the BFForum is the inability to open new "folders." >Before, if a folder was unused for a length of time -- 10 - 20 days I believe >-- it would be deleted. This would leave room for new folders to be opened. >At the changeover, we were frozen in time with the folders that existed. What >a disappointment!! We have some pretty lame folders that had just been set up. > And, there are others -- such as the ones on "Thanksgiving" and "Day of the >Covenant" -- which were time sensitive and are not very useful now. At >different times prior to the changeover, we had had folders that deepened on >the Administrative Order, on the Hands of the Cause, on Science and Religion, >etc... There was a folder entitled "Orthodox Baha'is" that was used by that >group to post news, etc. And there had been several on subjects that the BUPC >[Baha'is under Provisions of the Covenant] used to forward their claims. Now, >we are stuck for over 8 months with a folder entitled "Wide" which has no >purpose -- good or bad. And, another set up just before the switch called >"Truth about Baha'is" that was set up by a critic of the Faith who wished to >advertise his brand of Islam. I could go on. > >In addition, since the changeover, there have been no successful up-loads to >the Baha'i Faith Forum Library. I, too, have tried to upload some things that >I had promised others I would. [And, since you would normally lump me in with >"pro-SRB" Baha'is and Baha'i "fundies" --- I believe you called me an old >schoolmarm once -- you know it wasn't a matter of censorship on the part of the >host.] > >Mark Foster was the new Forum Leader appointed just prior to the switch-over, >but he seems genuinely concerned and unable to do anything about the situation. > Rest assured, we have complained many times to AOL. So far, our concerns have >fallen on deaf ears. > >My best to you... Richard >------------------------------------------ >Dr Richard A McKinley >Fayetteville NC USA >RMckin6046@aol.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 7:37 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: RFD? From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 7:30 AMTo: Send an email to bahai-request@bcca.org They should send you a full subscription form back. Mark Towfiq's NO vote piece was on bahai-discuss, bahai-women, and bahai-announce. Skim around in the back files for last year if you've got the time. It should be an eye opener.... Not that yours are closed.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm Cc: fglaysh@hotmail.comSubject: Subscriptionfglaysh@hotmail.com Glaysher, Frederick Announce;BINS;BCF;Discuss;Helping;Homeschool;Singles;Teachers;Tech;Women;You th;Read ings;RaceU.S. 0084057I prefer not disclosing any address information. I would like to subscribe to all of the following lists, indicated, perhaps, above:Baha'i Announce (Announce)BINS (BINS) Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping)Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) Baha'i Singles (Singles)Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)Baha'i Tech (Tech) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Readings (Readings) - this is not Baha'i only, but you maysubscribehere. Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 9:23 PM Subject: Re: RFD? >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Ron, let me suggest you consider subscribing to at >> least the bahai-discuss mailing list. It's the one I have >> archived at >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm >> >How do you do this? > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <35f48965.352234521@news.newsguy.com>... >On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:09:01 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>>>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >>>>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. >>>> >> >>Roger Reini wrote: >> >>I also have heard this opinion expressed by several individuals. And >>there is truth in it, for CB's and followers of CB's have posted to >>alt.religion.bahai in the past. >> >>I respond: >> >>Shoghi Effendi stated in unequivocal terms that they have >>every right to post ANYWHERE they so wish. I would say >>on soc.religion.bahai too. To bar them constitutes a clear >>violation of their civil rights. I believe a court of law would >>or will ultimately rule along these lines.... > >With all due respect, I do not believe the quote should be construed >so broadly.... Shoghi Effendi's phrase is "scrupulously upheld." There's not any room in that to my reading to wiggle around.... To do so would constitute a unscrupulous perversion of the palpable meaning of his words.... words that ought to apply to Usenet or any other area of human endeavor. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 8:22 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <35ebf139.327581871@news.newsguy.com>... > >611. Personal Relations with Covenant-Breakers > "To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to >the believers and does not constitute in itself an act of >Covenant-breaking. This then ought to apply in some way to electronic messages as well. Bahais ought to relax and realize if they then stumble onto a message by a covenant breaker and read it they probably won't be thrown out of the Bahai Faith.... 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 forearmed with an unshakable belief in >Baha'u'llah and His Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts. > "Personal relations with Covenant-breakers, however, such as >personal contact or entering into correspondence with one is strictly >forbidden. In this connection, however, it is important to remember >two qualifications: Notice: "in this connection," i.e., in terms of "correspondence," which has clear application to postings to newsgroups, where, too, as the next line states, their rights must be "scrupulously upheld." > "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be >scrupulously upheld. For example, if a Baha'i owes a debt to a person >who breaks the Covenant he must be sure that it is repaid and that his >obligations are met. > "Secondly, although the believers are required to avoid, if >possible, all contact with Covenant-breakers it sometimes happens that >contact on business matters cannot be avoided. For example, in one >city the head of the rate collection department was a >Covenant-breaker. In such situations the believers should restrict >their contact with the Covenant-breaker to a purely formal business >level and to an absolute minimum." > (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of >Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) > (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186) > >Frankly, I fail to see the relevance of this quotation to a discussion >about the formation of a Usenet discussion group. How would its use >encourage a believer to vote Yes on the proposal? I regard it as highly relevant since opponents of trb have emphasized that covenant breakers are the main reason they're opposed to the newsgroup. Here we have guidance from the UHJ on precisely the issue at hand, i.e., THEY EVEN have civil rights.... The first massive NO vote denied them, unequivocally, their civil rights as well as the rights of others.... Bahais seem to have partially learnt that lesson with the exception of about 20 fundamentalists. They need now to accept the UHJ's guidance that they could even support an unmoderated forum and thereby still be a good Bahai by upholding, a positive act notice, the civil rights of others, something exemplary, instead of a mere boycott.... It should help encourage believers to vote YES by taking away the fear that they'd be doing something sinful, treacherous, wrong, suspect, however you want to think of it. For the same reason, I believe the other passage from the UHJ needs to be quoted from last fall regarding it not being opposed to an unmoderated forum. If these two passages represent the position of the UHJ, NOTICE THE UHJ, why in the world should Bahais feel differently? Bahais should support the creation of an unmoderated forum. It's the opportunity to demonstrate, as Donald Osborn has been wont to say, "Bahai virtue." I recall John Milton's great words from Areopagitica: "I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness...." Milton understood the high and sublime resonance of the antinomies of the human heart requires a free forum that allows the exercise of the unfettered, God-given conscience of humankind.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:01 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Juan Cole Subject: ROUGH DRAFT - news release [Is it all right to mention you? I'll release this to about forty major or national newspapers the same day I post the RFD, which probably now won't be for another couple of weeks.] News Release Today the third interest poll begins for talk.religion.bahai, a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge fundamentalist members of the Bahai Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a year and a half because they would not be able to exercise the kind of control they already exert over soc.religion.bahai, a moderated newsgroup. Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of moderators chooses which messages are posted for all subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic battle between Bahais and ex-Bahais of liberal sentiment and the elements of a more literal-minded orthodoxy. Both appear ready for another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always debated. Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the Department of History at the University of Michigan, a former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive censorship and distortion of information throughout the religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of its Founders. A poet and literary critic who remains a Bahai, Frederick Glaysher, one of the four proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed a web site documenting numerous instances of censorship: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more than 14,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Bahais and others have a lot to say on the matter! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:11 AM To: Ron House Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release It seems to me it's best if we can resolve the cb issue before we start on news.groups. The newsgroupies hated all the cb furor in the past and we might keep more of them on our side we can take care of it first. If any of you can speak up on this one too, I'd appreciate it. Ron, I'm not going to lose sight of your suggestions for other newsgroups but want to settle the cb thing first, if it's possible, while it's hot. Other views? [I'll release this to about >forty major or national newspapers the same day I post >the RFD, which probably now won't be for another couple >of weeks.] > >News Release > >Today the third interest poll begins for talk.religion.bahai, >a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the >Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge fundamentalist >members of the Bahai Faith have opposed its creation >now for more than a year and a half because they would >not be able to exercise the kind of control they already >exert over soc.religion.bahai, a moderated newsgroup. >Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a >newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of >moderators chooses which messages are posted for all >subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic battle >between Bahais and ex-Bahais of liberal sentiment and >the elements of a more literal-minded orthodoxy. Both >appear ready for another stormy battle on news.groups, >the discussion group where the creation of a new forum >is always debated. > >Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the >Department of History at the University of Michigan, a >former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than >twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive >censorship and distortion of information throughout the >religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of >its Founders. A poet and literary critic who remains a Bahai, >Frederick Glaysher, one of the four proponents of >talk.religion.bahai, has developed a web site documenting >numerous instances of censorship: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more >than 14,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less >accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Bahais >and others have a lot to say on the matter! > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:20 AM Subject: Talk.Religion.Bahai It seems to me best not to post tomorrow the RFD for the third interest poll on talk.religion.bahai. We've gotten a late start on alt.religion.bahai on revising the last RFD and need maybe another couple of weeks. Also, I'm hoping the old issue regarding what Bahais call covenant breakers can be resolved and thereby spare news.groups a rehashing of that volatile debate. I hope too if anyone attempts to post a different RFD for talk.religion.bahai it won't be accepted as legitimate. Incidentally, there are three new moderators other than myself this time. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai It seems to me best not to post tomorrow the RFD for the third interest poll on talk.religion.bahai. We've gotten a late start on alt.religion.bahai on revising the last RFD and need maybe another couple of weeks. Also, I'm hoping the old issue regarding what Bahais call covenant breakers can be resolved and thereby spare news.groups a rehashing of that volatile debate. I hope too if anyone attempts to post a different RFD for talk.religion.bahai it won't be accepted as legitimate. Incidentally, there are three new moderators other than myself this time. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 12:13 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - news release Dear Frederick: Fine with me. JRIC ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 6:39 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Sunday, August 23, 1998 7:31 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai >[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time.] > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated >worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a >Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details >appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to >news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. > >Newsgroup line: >talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. > >RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > >Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists >specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A >need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup >would meet that need. > >>From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until >March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning >talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. > >From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages >have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly >varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages >per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. >Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an >additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have >probably been lost from the archive. During this time period, >approximately 513 different individuals posted on over >1,200 threads. > >From September 28, 1997, to August 31, 1998, over 23,000 >messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting >in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per >month for nine months. > >These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com >for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time >periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the >alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant >interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable >to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy >will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. > >As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, >it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious >Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it >since May 8, 1998. >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, >rather than supplant, the existing moderated group >soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to >alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the >opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted >YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on >alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is >anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users >see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative >unmoderated newsgroup. > >CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > >All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, >teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for >discussion. > >"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. > >"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' >participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the >Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or >through some form of electronic communication." >Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. > >Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting >procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > >Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms. > >The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith >is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, >large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, >spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. > >Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive >crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been >rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this >charter. > >As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular >religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai >newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. > >END CHARTER. > >PROCEDURE: > >An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be >considered by all: > >"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing >of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote >the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that >certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block >voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of >the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block >voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically >assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for >the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i >*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. >This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) >amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that >advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and >the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." > >The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD >stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining >the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in >news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion >groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a >three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify >the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > >The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must >pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 >more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an >e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet >Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > >This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation >guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and >"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further >questions about the process. > >DISTRIBUTION: > >This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, > alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human > >and the following three mailing lists: > > Talisman > Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu > > Bahai Studies > Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu > Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu > >Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, > soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, > soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, > soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology, > soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism, > talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion, > uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, > uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship > >And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: > >Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org >Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) >Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) >Baha'i Singles (Singles) >Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) >Baha'i Women Converse (Women) >Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) >Baha'i Announce (Announce) > >Proponent: Frederick Glaysher >Proponent: Ron House >Proponent: Fran Baker > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 6:51 AM Subject: Re: Spiritual civilization Fran Baker wrote in message <6s3usr$t44$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>... >"Barry Gerstner" writes: > >>Hi Fran, > >>I hope you don't mind if I put in my two cents in this conversation. > >Please do. > >> "A race of men," is Baha'u'llah's written promise, "incomparable in >>character, shall be raised up which, with the feet of detachment, will >>tread under all who are in heaven and on earth, and will cast the >>sleeve of holiness over all that hath been created from water and >>clay." >> (The Advent of Divine Justice, Page: 31) > >Sorry, but Hitler also said things like this. No, I don't mean >that Baha'u'llah was evil like Hitler, I just mean such >"fine words" can hide a vision that is not necessarily >good for humanity. > >>>>There is too much dirty laundry, too many medieval notions, >>>and too much "bad fruit" among the faithful for this to be >>>the next great push for humanity (not that it couldn't use one!). > >>I can well imagine where you get these ideas -- from reading >>alt.religion.bahai. > >This is not the case. My impressions were well formed before ARB >even existed. Mainly they came from attending Baha'i events open to the >public, participating in SRB and other (rather high level) >Baha'i forums, observing the behavior of my community's >LSAs, reading Baha'i literature, reading the American Baha'i >and Baha'i youth-oriented publications, etc. I might add that >I know several extrordinarily admirable Baha'is, not the least of whom >is my father-in-law, Dr. William Baker of Bolivia, son of >Dorothy Baker, and the whole Baker family actually, of which I am >proud to be a member. I originally regarded this religion as >a benign, ecumenical movement; I know see it as, for the most >part, a largely fundamentalist movement like born-again Christianity >with a different Jesus or Hasidic Judaism with a different Rebbe. > >Maybe something like a TRB forum will open it up and it will >become more spiritual and tolerant, less arrogant (less "teaching") >and less paranoid (less focus on CBs and censorship), less materialistic >(less relentless fundraising). > >As Owen Fiss (of Yale Law School) points out in "The Irony of Free Speech," >there is libertarian freedom (wherein he who screams the loudest >drowns out the other) and democratic freedom (wherin a full >and balanced range of expression is maintained). The latter is what >moderators are supposed to achieve, but often do not because >they are not committed to freedom at all. Something >in between SRB and ARB/TRB would be the best in my view, >but alas, that isn't an option. This is a balance we >each have to achieve for ourselves by selecting from >the libertarian clamor, as Roger has wisely suggested. Fran, thank you, for saying all of this so well.... > > >--Fran > >>Warmest regards, > >>Suzanne Gerstner >>The Hague, The Netherlands > >>"Where there's love nothing is too much trouble, >>and there's always time." -- 'Abdu'l-Baha > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 7:01 AM Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >Frankly, I fail to see the relevance of this quotation to a discussion >> >about the formation of a Usenet discussion group. How would its use >> >encourage a believer to vote Yes on the proposal? >> >> I regard it as highly relevant since opponents of trb have emphasized >> that covenant breakers are the main reason they're opposed to the >> newsgroup. > >I agree with this, but I do think that although the matter >needs mentioning, it doesn't need labouring. Therefore >I wouldn't want to expand the topic. Somehow (idiot me!) >I've lost my copy of the draft RFD. If you can send it down >again, Fred, I'll have a good careful read of the exact >wording and see if it can be 'polished' to take >everyone's concerns into account. > >> I recall John Milton's great words from Areopagitica: > >What a wonderful quote! It should be posted some >time during the discussion. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: [bahai-faith] World Baha'i Communities -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] World Baha'i Communities >George wrote: > >> I have noticed here that most, if not all, of the negative comments directed >> at the Faith or it's members, seems to come from those who have had >> experiences, very limited at best, only in the United States. > >I have had unpleasant experiences with a particular >Baha'i community in Australia, but although their >bahaviour was very unpleasant and even disobedient of >'Abdu'l-Baha, I don't think it is a general characteristic >of Australian Baha'i institutions. So perhaps, even >though I have had a bad experience, this might lend >some weight to your suspicion that the US institutions >are undergoing some kind of malfunction unique to them. >My problems are not so much with this kind of thing. >I am more concerned with the increasing self-righteousness >and arrogance of the Baha'i communities, more or less >assuming that they have ALL the answers and the only >thing they need do is teach some more. All this is >in direct contradiction to Shoghi Effendi's advice. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >____________________________________________________________ >List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ >To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > >FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 7:11 AM To: Ron House Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker ; Fran Baker Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> [I'll release this to about >> >forty major or national newspapers the same day I post >> >the RFD, which probably now won't be for another couple >> >of weeks.] >> > >Whilst I understand the reason for sending to newspapers, >I wonder if it is wise. As an item of pure interest, maybe, >but it could easily draw charges of going behind the backs >of the newsgroups, just as we charged the Baha'i mailing lists. >If you do want to go ahead, I'd appreciate a chance to make >some suggestions about the wording, Fred, if that's OK by you. I think it's crucial to keep the pressure on. I don't expect anything favorable from the bunch of Bahais who have been around most of the time making excuses for srb and so on.... I don't believe there's a parallel with the mailing lists at all. They're private, this would be public, and is news worthy since it suggests a very different Bahai Faith from the one most newspapers and people know or hear about.... I'd appreciate any suggestions any of you might have. It was with that hope that I sent it to you. Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 8:40 AM Subject: Re: ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai The Rough Draft of the third RFD is now up on my web site. I will try to keep the most recent version available there as we move along.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 1998 10:50 AM Subject: The Baha'i Technique During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues or discredit people who hold other opinions than their own: Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai." More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES. Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:30 AM Subject: Fran Baker page added to web site For those interested, I've added a page of messages from Fran Baker to my web site and updated it in a number of other ways. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:17 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Fran Baker; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release Here is my solution to the 'civil rights' question. See what you all think: CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non- electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press. As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However, Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question: "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an open Internet forum: "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of electronic communication." Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. (The rest as before) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:20 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Pure intentions. Was: finding and leaving the Baha'i Faith Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I admire your honesty on srb. And grieve for a religion > that stands by and allows fanatics to kick people out of > a forum because of a signature file that ultimately > points to something else on the Internet.... Dead right. That decision was completely indefensible. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:42 PM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher Cc: Fran Baker; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release This looks reasonable to me. As has already been said or implied, this vote is going to pass a lot more easily if the rhetoric is kept as moderate as possible. It is critical that the "official documents," so to speak, argue for the creation of TRB without focusing on any distracting issues that are not absolutely necessary. -- Frank At 01:17 PM 8/31/98 +1000, Ron House wrote: >Here is my solution to the 'civil rights' question. >See what you all think: > > >CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > >All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, >teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for >discussion. > >Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. >Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be >uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door >for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the >eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies >from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai >also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible >Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly >becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for >those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be >as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non- >electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the >spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press. > >As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and >responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of >the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However, >Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question: > >"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186. > >Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an >open Internet forum: > >"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' >participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the >Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or >through some form of electronic communication." >Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. > >Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting >procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > >(The rest as before) > > > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is >unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. > >