From - Thu Nov 07 15:16:02 1996 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (198.81.11.23) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 07 Nov 1996 14:03:49 -0500 Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29385 for @moa.net; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:08:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:08:53 -0500 From: KARL1971@aol.com Message-ID: <961107140852_1583962674@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: @moa.net Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 You made some heavy observations on the Iranians immigrants. Don't you think you should keep in mind that they've had to live under an extremely rigid fascist-authoritarian government? From - Thu Nov 07 16:35:00 1996 Message-ID: <32825604.10@moa.net> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:35:00 -0500 From: <@moa.net> Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KARL1971@aol.com Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 References: <961107140852_1583962674@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 KARL1971@aol.com wrote: > > You made some heavy observations on the Iranians immigrants. > > Don't you think you should keep in mind that they've had to live under an extremely rigid fascist-authoritarian government? What's your point? Do you actually believe they're free of that cultural background? Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan, USA From - Thu Nov 07 16:39:58 1996 Message-ID: <3282572E.2005@moa.net> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:39:58 -0500 From: <@moa.net> Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Friend, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > I am returningthis to you for editting. I cannot allow the blanket > statements: I refuse to edit my post in any way whatsoever. Your role as a moderator is not to be a fascist and stunt the serious exchange of ideas. Incidentally, "editting" is spelt with one "t." > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > especially in this regard. > > and > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > and obedience. > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > general or backed up by fact. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-1.ouhub.moa.net > > From: <@moa.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 > > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 11:08:44 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 87 > > Message-ID: <3282098C.31E@moa.net> > > References: <55sp6p$q76@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > hasn't? > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > especially in this regard. > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > with. > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > full of evil." > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > and obedience. > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== From - Fri Nov 08 07:24:47 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:49:15 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.5.102]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id OAA22751; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:54:18 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id OAA10843; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:54:18 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611072154.OAA10843@primenet.com> Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 To: @moa.net () Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:54:17 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3282572E.2005@moa.net> from "" at Nov 7, 96 04:39:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 You write: > > Dear Friend, > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > I am returningthis to you for editting. I cannot allow the blanket > > statements: > > I refuse to edit my post in any way whatsoever. Your role as a moderator > is not to be a fascist and stunt the serious exchange of ideas. > Incidentally, "editting" is spelt with one "t." > I am sorry, but as submitted, your post does not meet the charter of the newsgroup. It contains blanket statements about a group of people when that statement can not possibly be applied accurately to all in that group. It is therefore stereotypical and could be offensive to those in that group. The charter for the newsgroup clearly disallows this type of post. If you would like to support your contention by clearly identifying it as your opinion and supplying some facts to support it or qualifying it in a meaningful way, I would be happy to post your remarks. Thank you for expressing your concern, Dick Detweiler, co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com From - Fri Nov 08 07:24:50 1996 Received: from FNAL.FNAL.Gov (131.225.110.17) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 07 Nov 1996 20:29:41 -0500 Received: from fsui01.fnal.gov ("port 46475"@fsui01.fnal.gov) by FNAL.FNAL.GOV (PMDF V5.0-5 #3998) id <01IBKQSCLR3A003RKT@FNAL.FNAL.GOV> for @moa.net; Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:34:45 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fsui01.fnal.gov (8.7.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id TAA00848 for <@moa.net>; Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:35:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:35:04 -0600 (CST) From: Durga Subject: Re: Your post on Soc.religion.eastern To: @moa.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 >>Can you give me more detail on wht Moksha means to you and Hinduism? >>I've read a little about it but it's hard to understand. Hello, Let me admit before I offer anything that I'm not what you might consider qualified in the purist's sense to answer such questions. But having been a Hindu who after many years of travelling, sometimes among blind alleys, has found a central point of Hinduism, let me offer whatever knowledge I might have gained. Well, now when you say Moksha, I assume you are talking about "moksha = complete freedom". That is what moksha means, complete freedom from delusion and misery. And the core of non-dualistic Hindu teaching(i.e the Vedanta) goes further. It says the goal is to go beyond even conceptions of misery and happiness. The aim is to reach That which is without a second. This the Hindu calls the Atman or Brahman. Jargon apart, the goal of spirituality or enquiry according to Vedanta is to realize your true nature which is Oneness , which is the infinite, all encompassing, Brahman. The rest are just reflections of that One. You might find a different view, which at first might seem contrary to the above, in the teachings of the dualistic(or Bhakti) schools. But ultimately, their aim is the same : complete surrender to God, love God for love's sake, don't ask for anything, don't expect anything, love the Lord completely and surrender your all, mind, body, desire, to Him. And thus surrendering all, you are left with that One which you would call God for you would not see anything else but God and his manifestations. The God of the Bhaktas is the Atman of the Vedantists. I cannot but quote Vivekananda here : "Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divinity. Do it by work, worship, reason, by one or more of all of these. This is the whole of religion. Temples or doctrines or dogmas are secondary details." Now I'm not sure what moksha means to Hindus as a whole. But to a large extent you could say that the goal of a Hindu to attain Moksha. This he might do by praying everyday, by worshipping, by serving the needy, by reasoning within himself, by meditating. I hope I haven't led you farther from where you wanted to get. I'd be happy to answer/point to answers if you have any questions. Regards, Durga From - Sat Nov 09 07:38:15 1996 Received: from dns.eng.auburn.edu (131.204.10.13) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 03:21:15 -0500 Received: from hamming.eng.auburn.edu (hamming.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.21.60]) by dns.eng.auburn.edu (8.7.6/8.6.4) with ESMTP id CAA00601; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 02:26:18 -0600 (CST) From: Sankar Jayanarayanan Received: (kartik@localhost) by hamming.eng.auburn.edu (SMI-8.6/8.6.4) id CAA00194; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 02:26:14 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 02:26:14 -0600 Message-Id: <199611090826.CAA00194@hamming.eng.auburn.edu> To: @moa.net Subject: shastra X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0009 You wrote in soc.religion.hindu: > Permit me a elementary question. What are the Shastras anyway? This article, which appeared a while ago in SRH may explain it: -------------------------- Our Shastras in general can be divided into two types. Those that teach Dharma, and those that teach Jnana. Dharma is how to live life ranging from which days we are allowed to shave to the proper ethical attitude we should maintain towards our fellow Man. The philosophy of Dharma is called Purva Mimamsa. Jnana is the knowledge of Brahman or Ultimate Reality. The philosophy of Brahman is called Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta. The original Shastra is the Veda. Maharshi Veda Vyas divided the Veda into four sections (Rk, Yajus, Sama, and Atharva) which he taught to four students. They taught them to their students and so on. Each of these are divided into four sections (Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka, and Upanishad.) However these 16 types are not really that relevant in the practical sense. No part is worth more or less than the others. The Veda is apaurusheya or uncreated. Therefore it is called Shruti. ("Heard") The sages whose names are associated with various sections didn't write them but "heard" or "saw" them. The problem with the Veda is that it is off-limits to women and Shudras. As it would be unjust to deny access to the shastras to the vast majority of Dharmik people Maharshi Veda Vyas took the essence of the Veda and wrote the Mahabharata (of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part) and the Purana which he taught to his student Suta Pauranik. The original one Purana was split into 18 Mahapuranas and 18 Upapuranas. The Mahabharata together with the Ramayana of Maharshi Valmiki are called Itihasa. The Itihasa's and Puranas together with the shastras various other sages wrote are collectively called Smrti. ("Remembered") Although they are very old, they are acknowledged to be written by actual people unlike the Veda. The third basis for the practice of our religion along side Shruti and Smrti is Shishtachar or customs and traditions which have been passed down to us through the centuries by our teachers. We have no equivalent to the "holy books" of other religions. The sum total of Shruti, Smrti and Shistachar is our guide. The emphasis has always been on learning from a qualified teacher of Dharma, part of an unbroken chain of teachers ("Sampradaya") Even though many of the shastras are available in book form, it is considered more important to memorize your duties and most importantly _practice_ them rather than just read about them. -------------------------- -Kartik From - Sat Nov 09 07:58:27 1996 Message-ID: <32847FF3.7532@moa.net> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:58:27 -0500 From: <@moa.net> Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Friend, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > I am returningthis to you for editting. [sic] I cannot allow the blanket > statements: > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > especially in this regard. > > and > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > and obedience. > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > general or backed up by fact. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > hasn't? > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent evidence of this in my experience is Richard C. Detweiler's censoring of this posting the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > with. > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > full of evil." > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, doesn't exactly value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > From - Sat Nov 09 17:16:34 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 10:33:02 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA04304; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:38:05 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id IAA03876; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:38:04 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net () Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:38:03 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32847FF3.7532@moa.net> from "" at Nov 9, 96 07:58:27 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, Please reformat and delete personal reference to moderators and blanket attacks against groups and I would be happy to post your remarks, Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:58:27 -0500 > From: <@moa.net> > Organization: > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > I am returningthis to you for editting. [sic] I cannot allow the blanket > > statements: > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > especially in this regard. > > > > and > > > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > and obedience. > > > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > > general or backed up by fact. > > > > Thank you for participating, > > > > Dick Detweiler > > rdetweil@primenet.com > > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > > hasn't? > > > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent evidence of this in my experience is Richard C. Detweiler's censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > > full of evil." > > > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, doesn't exactly > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > > > From - Sun Nov 10 05:25:29 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:18:55 -0500 Message-ID: <328504DC.4551@moa.net> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:25:32 -0500 From: <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > Please reformat and delete personal reference to moderators and > blanket attacks against groups and I would be happy to post > your remarks, > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com Dear Richard: Let me make sure I understand this: Moderators, like Hitler and other fascists, are above all criticism. The Kitab-i-Oppression says so. I spelled out "SOME" though I believe the context, as well as reason, implies it. > > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:58:27 -0500 > > From: <@moa.net> > > Organization: > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > > References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > > > I am returningthis to you for editting. [sic] I cannot allow the blanket > > > statements: > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > > especially in this regard. > > > > > > and > > > > > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > > and obedience. > > > > > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > > > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > > > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > > > general or backed up by fact. > > > > > > Thank you for participating, > > > > > > Dick Detweiler > > > rdetweil@primenet.com > > > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > > > > > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > > > hasn't? > > > > > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent evidence of this in my experience is Richard C. Detweiler's censoring > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > > > full of evil." > > > > > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, doesn't > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > > > > > From - Sun Nov 10 05:25:34 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:58:48 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr01.primenet.com [206.165.5.101]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id QAA11251; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:03:52 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA00271; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:03:51 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611092303.QAA00271@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net () Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:03:50 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <328504DC.4551@moa.net> from "" at Nov 9, 96 05:25:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, I am sorry if you have a problem with moderated newsgroups. But if you would like to take part in the discussion on this groups, you need to make sure your submittals meet the charter of the group. I am enclosing a copy of it for your reference. Please keep it in mind while reviewing the post in question and my comments. Again, when it is free of personal attacks and negative comments about a whole group of people which could find them offensive, I would be happy to post it. My reformatting request had to do with getting rid of the '>'s that have build up over the course of our exchange. Let me also reiterate that negative comments about the Faith are fine on the newsgroup as long as they meet the charter. If you would like to make a point that Iranian culture tends towards orthodoxy and that that may impact the way some individuals act, that's alright. Just make sure the comments meet the charter. If you want to say Baha'is are a bunch of uptight, repressed, narrow-minded, religiously-conned, non-intellectual, misguided saps, just make sure you say it with a smile on your face, OK? And one more thing, fascists like me like honey a lot better than vinegar. If you take my meaning... Your jack-booted, brown-shirted moderator friend, Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com CHARTER FOR THE SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI NEWSGROUP ============================================== PURPOSE The newsgroup will act as a non-threatening forum for discussing and sharing information about the tenets, history, and texts of the Baha'i Faith. Prior to its formation there was a good amount of traffic on this topic in other newsgroups; this group provides a "single point of contact" for such discussion. Examples of posts that fall within the group's scope are: * The Baha'i Faith's relation to other religions * Relevance of Baha'i principles to current world events/problems * Analysis of particular scriptural passages or themes * General Q & A MODERATOR POLICIES o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup. o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished, unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah." o Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a book reference) may also be rejected. o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist. o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise ratio. From - Sun Nov 10 05:25:37 1996 Received: from Joyce-Perkins.tenet.edu (198.213.2.6) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 20:38:43 -0500 Received: (from haukness@localhost) by Joyce-Perkins.tenet.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA03956; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:43:39 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:43:39 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: <@moa.net> cc: bahai-faith@bcca.org Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought In-Reply-To: <5629go$4p9@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church and state is based on fear and will fade away. As far as equating Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? This is by no means the definative statements of Shoghi Effendi on this issue, we could quote and fill 20 screens with ease, but let's take one more from Abdul Baha on education: "That these children, reared one and all in the holy Teachings, will develop natures like unto the sweet airsthat blow across the gardens of the All-Glorious, and will waft their fragrance around the world." And so why would Abdul Baha's teachings on education, be like the above, again and again emphaisizing the importance of "holy Teachings;" to then, after ones education is complete, step out into a world where science and religion are separated, when for all of a child's education, they were inseperable? And so too, let us define what constitutes and intellectual, John Haukness has 4 and a half degrees, can spot any of Chagall's or Klee's works in the library, and can tell you Brahm's second symphony by the 1st bar, and I also dare say, most of our Hands of the Cause were highly literary, and I am sure, they do, chuckle at the notion, the state needs to be separate from religion. au revoir haukness@tenet.edu 2015 Bay St. N. Texas City, TX 77590 voice/fax 409-948-6074 One planet one people please! On 9 Nov 1996, wrote: > John Haukness wrote: > > > > Dear Friends: Thank's to Maya for reminding us that in the recent letter > > to us, from the Universal House of Justice, we can clearly see, that > > standards of scholarship are closely linked with sprititual issues. We > > can also see, it will take some time, for Western academic secularism, > > and existentialism to accept the non-separation between religion and > > state. au revoir > > > > haukness@tenet.edu > > 2015 Bay St. N. > > Texas City, TX 77590 > > voice/fax 409-948-6074 > > One planet one people please! > > John, > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > From - Sun Nov 10 07:13:37 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:00:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3285C57D.2927@moa.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:07:25 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611092303.QAA00271@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > I am sorry if you have a problem with moderated newsgroups. "Problem" is a derogatory characterization of my position. What I disaprove of is CENSORED newsgroups. In my last posting, I apparently hurt your feelings. But if > you would like to take part in the discussion on this groups, you need > to make sure your submittals meet the charter of the group. I am > enclosing a copy of it for your reference. Please keep it in mind > while reviewing the post in question and my comments. Again, when > it is free of personal attacks [you?] and negative comments about a whole > group of people which could find them offensive, [I qualified the obvious, i.e., what ought to go without saying.] I would be happy > to post it. My reformatting request had to do with getting rid of > the '>'s that have build up over the course of our exchange. I'm resending it then. > > Let me also reiterate that negative comments about the Faith are fine > on the newsgroup as long as they meet the charter. If you would like > to make a point that Iranian culture tends towards orthodoxy and that > that may impact the way some individuals act, that's alright. [sic] Just > make sure the comments meet the charter. [And God has enlightened you to make the decision?] If you want to say Baha'is > are a bunch of uptight, repressed, narrow-minded, religiously-conned, > non-intellectual, misguided saps, just make sure you say it with a > smile on your face, OK? This, Richard, is a generalization, one apparently you find permissible. I, however, will grant you what you refuse to grant me: The statement of an opinion without endless, absurd qualifications, IMHOs, etc. > > And one more thing, fascists like me like honey a lot better than > vinegar. If you take my meaning... > You're abusing your power. All fascists do/did. Threats stultify the exchange of ideas as much as censorship. > Your jack-booted, brown-shirted moderator friend, You're trying to turn into a joke a very serious issue. > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com > > CHARTER FOR THE SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI NEWSGROUP > ============================================== I don't disagree with any of this nor did my original post. > > > PURPOSE > > The newsgroup will act as a non-threatening forum for discussing and > sharing information about the tenets, history, and texts of the Baha'i > Faith. Prior to its formation there was a good amount of traffic on > this topic in other newsgroups; this group provides a "single point of > contact" for such discussion. > > Examples of posts that fall within the group's scope are: > > * The Baha'i Faith's relation to other religions > * Relevance of Baha'i principles to current world events/problems > * Analysis of particular scriptural passages or themes > * General Q & A > > > MODERATOR POLICIES > > o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a > decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet > respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks > (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory > attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use > offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only > the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. > > o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i > Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual > Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in > determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup. > > o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished, > unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should > paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib > Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah." > > o Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority > outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This > does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate > the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. > > o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a > book reference) may also be rejected. > > o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who > can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude > anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist. > > o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. > The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying > remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise > ratio. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 10 07:38:37 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:23:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3285CAB3.45FE@moa.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:29:39 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rdetweil@primenet.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> <328504DC.4551@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 karl1971@aol.com wrote: >Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai >Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it >doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening >when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical >ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her >war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking >unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way >she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it >sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the >time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, hasn't? >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. >Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an >authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by the Iranian Baha'i influence [SOME] upon the understanding of its teachings, especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] >If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or >for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further >than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to >those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable >effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's >worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > with. In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is full of evil." > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds >of man." - Thomas Jefferson >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries >are founded on such principles? You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not value the free exchange of ideas.] -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 10 07:38:40 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:31:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3285CCB9.6431@moa.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:38:17 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Durga CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Your post on Soc.religion.eastern References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Durga wrote: > > >>Can you give me more detail on wht Moksha means to you and Hinduism? > >>I've read a little about it but it's hard to understand. > > Hello, > > Let me admit before I offer anything that I'm not what you might consider > qualified in the purist's sense to answer such questions. But having been > a Hindu who after many years of travelling, sometimes among blind alleys, > has found a central point of Hinduism, let me offer whatever knowledge I > might have gained. > > Well, now when you say Moksha, I assume you are talking about "moksha = > complete freedom". That is what moksha means, complete freedom from > delusion and misery. And the core of non-dualistic Hindu teaching(i.e the > Vedanta) goes further. It says the goal is to go beyond even conceptions > of misery and happiness. The aim is to reach That which is without a > second. This the Hindu calls the Atman or Brahman. Jargon apart, the goal > of spirituality or enquiry according to Vedanta is to realize your true > nature which is Oneness , which is the infinite, all encompassing, > Brahman. The rest are just reflections of that One. You might find a > different view, which at first might seem contrary to the above, in the > teachings of the dualistic(or Bhakti) schools. But ultimately, their aim > is the same : complete surrender to God, love God for love's sake, don't > ask for anything, don't expect anything, love the Lord completely and > surrender your all, mind, body, desire, to Him. And thus surrendering all, > you are left with that One which you would call God for you would not see > anything else but God and his manifestations. The God of the Bhaktas is > the Atman of the Vedantists. I cannot but quote Vivekananda here : > "Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divinity. > Do it by work, worship, reason, by one or more of all of these. This is > the whole of religion. Temples or doctrines or dogmas are secondary > details." > Now I'm not sure what moksha means to Hindus as a whole. But to a large > extent you could say that the goal of a Hindu to attain Moksha. This he > might do by praying everyday, by worshipping, by serving the needy, by > reasoning within himself, by meditating. > > I hope I haven't led you farther from where you wanted to get. > I'd be happy to answer/point to answers if you have any questions. > > Regards, > > Durga Thanks, Durga, for your fine explanation of Moksha. I've read a lot of Tagore's writings, the Bhagavad Gita, Narayan, and so on. I used to teach non-Western literature, including Indian, and have always found the idea of Moksha fascinating in its universality though some might disagree. What text is it that says Truth is One, men call it by different names? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Nov 11 07:01:58 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 10:20:36 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr09.primenet.com [206.165.5.109]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA25365; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:25:39 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id IAA23650; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:25:38 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:25:37 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3285CAB3.45FE@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 10, 96 07:29:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to the newsgroup: > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] and > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > value the free exchange of ideas.] Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com > From @moa.net Sun Nov 10 05:28:08 1996 > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id FAA29406 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:28:07 -0700 (MST) > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:23:00 -0500 > Message-ID: <3285CAB3.45FE@moa.net> > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:29:39 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: rdetweil@primenet.com > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> <328504DC.4551@moa.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > >Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > >Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > >doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > >when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > >ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > >war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > >unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > >she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > >sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > >time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > hasn't? > > >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > >Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > >authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > the Iranian Baha'i influence [SOME] upon the understanding of its teachings, > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > >If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > >for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > >than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > >those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > >effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > >worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > with. > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > full of evil." > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > >are founded on such principles? > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: rdetweil@primenet.com > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> <328504DC.4551@moa.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > >Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > >Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > >doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > >when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > >ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > >war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > >unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > >she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > >sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > >time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > hasn't? > > >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > >Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > >authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > the Iranian Baha'i influence [SOME] upon the understanding of its teachings, > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > >If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > >for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > >than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > >those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > >effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > >worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > with. > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > full of evil." > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > >are founded on such principles? > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Tue Nov 12 06:49:41 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.45) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:28:07 -0500 Message-ID: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:34:47 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on > this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to > the newsgroup: > These do not constitute personal attacks but exposures of your undue interference in the content on my postings. I can understand you would prefer no one else should know about the issue. In my opinion, you're violating my constitutional freedom as an American citizen and my privilege as a Baha'i to express my conscience candidly. In both of these passages, I am taking issue with the heavy-handed editorial practice that you seem to believe is justifiable. I trust the spark of truth enough to manifest itself to allow others to speak their minds. That, to me, is a Baha'i principle, sorely neglected in your handling of my post. I believe it is legitimate use of the newsgroup to discuss the moderators' procedures for manipulating discussion. > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > and > > > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body > of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. > Your request to strike these is so as not to draw attention to your flawed handling of my posting. You're now merely trying to protect yourself from the possible censure you have earned. I'm not out to get YOU. Don't get paranoid. It's policy that permits ANY moderator to do what you have that concerns me. I believe that policy, in context, is worthy of discussion, indeed, essential. Your request to include my parenthetical comments constitutes another request to obscure further the real issue. Your attempt to protect yourself at the cost of silencing me. > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 12 06:49:43 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:48:51 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr05.primenet.com [206.165.5.105]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id GAA23233; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:53:55 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id GAA06981; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:53:54 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611111353.GAA06981@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:53:53 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 11, 96 07:34:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Frederick, The policy of this newsgroup is not to allow offensive material. Your post contains two instances where you make blanket statements about Iranians which many could view as prejudgemental and offensive. You have also insisted on including attacks on the moderator, these are not allowed as they are attacks on an individual. These comments must be tempered - moderated if you will. The purpose of this group is to share ideas and the moderators work to make sure that ideas and not people are the focus of discussion. I am sorry but that is all there is to it. I have handed off moderation duty to the next moderator in the cycle as Sunday was my last day. Please direct any further comments to the address srb-mods@bcca.org. If you have problems with these policies as a Baha'i, I suggest you take it up with a Local Spiritual Assembly or Auxiliary Board member as well. Thanks again for expressing your concerns, Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > From @moa.net Mon Nov 11 05:33:16 1996 > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id FAA04941 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:33:14 -0700 (MST) > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.45) by atlas.moa.net > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:28:07 -0500 > Message-ID: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:34:47 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on > > this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to > > the newsgroup: > > > > These do not constitute personal attacks but exposures of your undue interference > in the content on my postings. I can understand you would prefer no one else > should know about the issue. In my opinion, you're violating my constitutional > freedom as an American citizen and my privilege as a Baha'i to express my > conscience candidly. In both of these passages, I am taking issue with the > heavy-handed editorial practice that you seem to believe is justifiable. I trust > the spark of truth enough to manifest itself to allow others to speak their minds. > That, to me, is a Baha'i principle, sorely neglected in your handling of my post. > I believe it is legitimate use of the newsgroup to discuss the moderators' > procedures for manipulating discussion. > > > > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > > > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > and > > > > > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > > > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body > > of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. > > > > Your request to strike these is so as not to draw attention to your flawed > handling of my posting. You're now merely trying to protect yourself from > the possible censure you have earned. I'm not out to get YOU. Don't get > paranoid. It's policy that permits ANY moderator to do what you have that > concerns me. I believe that policy, in context, is worthy of discussion, > indeed, essential. > > Your request to include my parenthetical comments constitutes another request > to obscure further the real issue. Your attempt to protect yourself at the > cost of silencing me. > > > > Dick Detweiler > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > rdetweil@primenet.com > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Wed Nov 13 06:53:19 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:08:59 -0500 Received: from RICK (Port21.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.31]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA28513 for <@moa.net>; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:13:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:14:01 -0600 Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience in working with the moderators on this. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai From - Wed Nov 13 06:53:21 1996 Received: from gaston.tenet.edu (198.213.2.8) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:08:21 -0500 Received: (from haukness@localhost) by gaston.tenet.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA07867; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:03:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:03:34 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: Rick Boatright cc: @moa.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought In-Reply-To: <199611102107.PAA10562@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Rick: After reviewing my message I find my tone and objectivity, is quite more temperate and reserved than many other posts. I find soc.religion's moderating policy to lean towards the left ideology. On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Rick Boatright wrote: > Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) > > I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message > he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, > perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you > both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the > newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted > context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup > generally strives for. > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) > From: John Haukness > To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> > Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > John Haukness wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. > > And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we > as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular > behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the > secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > > > > I made no such suggestion. > > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation > of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still > is necessary. > > > > > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of > church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for > the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like > among church against church and state against state, Likewise being > ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 > years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now > is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like > to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one > can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious > society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly > wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married > interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate > manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization > one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look > at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, > and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation > level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of > Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New > World Order state. > All the best! > > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > > > > From - Wed Nov 13 07:29:19 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.44) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:19:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3289BE59.6BA7@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:26:01 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! References: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience > in working with the moderators on this. > No patience at all. You and your cohorts are heavy-handed, self-righeteous fascists who apparently believe God has touched you with holy wisdom. I feel nothing but contempt for Baha'is like you. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Nov 11 07:34:47 1996 Message-ID: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:34:47 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on > this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to > the newsgroup: > These do not constitute personal attacks but exposures of your undue interference in the content on my postings. I can understand you would prefer no one else should know about the issue. In my opinion, you're violating my constitutional freedom as an American citizen and my privilege as a Baha'i to express my conscience candidly. In both of these passages, I am taking issue with the heavy-handed editorial practice that you seem to believe is justifiable. I trust the spark of truth enough to manifest itself to allow others to speak their minds. That, to me, is a Baha'i principle, sorely neglected in your handling of my post. I believe it is legitimate use of the newsgroup to discuss the moderators' procedures for manipulating discussion. > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > and > > > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body > of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. > Your request to strike these is so as not to draw attention to your flawed handling of my posting. You're now merely trying to protect yourself from the possible censure you have earned. I'm not out to get YOU. Don't get paranoid. It's policy that permits ANY moderator to do what you have that concerns me. I believe that policy, in context, is worthy of discussion, indeed, essential. Your request to include my parenthetical comments constitutes another request to obscure further the real issue. Your attempt to protect yourself at the cost of silencing me. > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 13 07:26:02 1996 Message-ID: <3289BE59.6BA7@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:26:01 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! References: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience > in working with the moderators on this. > No patience at all. You and your cohorts are heavy-handed, self-righeteous fascists who apparently believe God has touched you with holy wisdom. I feel nothing but contempt for Baha'is like you. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 13 07:28:28 1996 Message-ID: <3289BEEC.27DF@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:28:28 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Haukness CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Another excellent example, apparently, of the abuse of your laughable little powers as a "moderator." You're interfering too much in the CONTENT of the message. John Haukness wrote: > > Dear Rick: After reviewing my message I find my tone and objectivity, is > quite more temperate and reserved than many other posts. I find > soc.religion's moderating policy to lean towards the left ideology. > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) > > > > I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message > > he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, > > perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you > > both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the > > newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted > > context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup > > generally strives for. > > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) > > From: John Haukness > > To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> > > Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought > > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > John Haukness wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > > > > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > > > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. > > > > And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we > > as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular > > behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the > > secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > > > > > > > I made no such suggestion. > > > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation > > of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still > > is necessary. > > > > > > > > > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > > > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > > > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of > > church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for > > the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like > > among church against church and state against state, Likewise being > > ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 > > years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now > > is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like > > to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one > > can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious > > society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly > > wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married > > interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate > > manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization > > one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look > > at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, > > and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation > > level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of > > Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New > > World Order state. > > All the best! > > > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Nov 11 07:02:06 1996 Received: from Joyce-Perkins.tenet.edu (198.213.2.6) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 12:12:58 -0500 Received: (from haukness@localhost) by Joyce-Perkins.tenet.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA04356; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:03 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought In-Reply-To: <3285B4C3.72D6@moa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > John Haukness wrote: > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > I made no such suggestion. > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still is necessary. > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like among church against church and state against state, Likewise being ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New World Order state. All the best! > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > From - Mon Nov 11 07:02:09 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:58:32 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA10307; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:03:16 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611102103.PAA10307@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:15:05 -0600 Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@BCCA.Org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Frederick, I am returning this post to you to request a little editing. Is it possible that we could improve the signal-to-noise ratio of this post by either reducing the commented text, or expanding your comments from 5 lines out of 100 to some larger explanation? Thanks for your participation Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net From: FG <@moa.net> Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:56:03 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. To: John Haukness John Haukness wrote: > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > and state is based on fear and will fade away. It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. As far as equating > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > I made no such suggestion. > This is by no means the definative statements of Shoghi Effendi on this > issue, we could quote and fill 20 screens with ease, but let's take one > more from Abdul Baha on education: "That these children, reared one and > all in the holy Teachings, will develop natures like unto the sweet > airsthat blow across the gardens of the All-Glorious, and will waft their > fragrance around the world." And so why would Abdul Baha's teachings on > education, be like the above, again and again emphaisizing the importance > of "holy Teachings;" to then, after ones education is complete, step out > into a world where science and religion are separated, when for all of a > child's education, they were inseperable? > > And so too, let us define what constitutes and intellectual, John [sic] > Haukness has 4 and a half degrees, can spot any of Chagall's or Klee's > works in the library, and can tell you Brahm's second symphony by the 1st > bar, and I also dare say, most of our Hands of the Cause were highly > literary, and I am sure, they do, chuckle at the notion, the state needs > to be separate from religion. > au revoir > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > haukness@tenet.edu > 2015 Bay St. N. > Texas City, TX 77590 > voice/fax 409-948-6074 > One planet one people please! > > On 9 Nov 1996, wrote: > > > John Haukness wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friends: Thank's to Maya for reminding us that in the recent letter > > > to us, from the Universal House of Justice, we can clearly see, that > > > standards of scholarship are closely linked with sprititual issues. We > > > can also see, it will take some time, for Western academic secularism, > > > and existentialism to accept the non-separation between religion and > > > state. au revoir > > > > > > haukness@tenet.edu > > > 2015 Bay St. N. > > > Texas City, TX 77590 > > > voice/fax 409-948-6074 > > > One planet one people please! > > > > John, > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > From - Mon Nov 11 07:02:12 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:03:13 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA10562; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:07:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611102107.PAA10562@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: John Haukness , @moa.net Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:19:43 -0600 Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup generally strives for. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > John Haukness wrote: > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > I made no such suggestion. > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still is necessary. > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like among church against church and state against state, Likewise being ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New World Order state. All the best! > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > From - Thu Nov 14 06:37:40 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.44) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:19:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3289BE59.6BA7@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:26:01 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! References: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience > in working with the moderators on this. > No patience at all. You and your cohorts are heavy-handed, self-righeteous fascists who apparently believe God has touched you with holy wisdom. I feel nothing but contempt for Baha'is like you. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Nov 14 06:37:42 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.44) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:21:48 -0500 Message-ID: <3289BEEC.27DF@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:28:28 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Haukness CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Another excellent example, apparently, of the abuse of your laughable little powers as a "moderator." You're interfering too much in the CONTENT of the message. John Haukness wrote: > > Dear Rick: After reviewing my message I find my tone and objectivity, is > quite more temperate and reserved than many other posts. I find > soc.religion's moderating policy to lean towards the left ideology. > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) > > > > I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message > > he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, > > perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you > > both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the > > newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted > > context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup > > generally strives for. > > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) > > From: John Haukness > > To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> > > Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought > > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > John Haukness wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > > > > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > > > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. > > > > And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we > > as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular > > behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the > > secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > > > > > > > I made no such suggestion. > > > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation > > of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still > > is necessary. > > > > > > > > > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > > > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > > > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of > > church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for > > the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like > > among church against church and state against state, Likewise being > > ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 > > years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now > > is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like > > to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one > > can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious > > society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly > > wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married > > interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate > > manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization > > one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look > > at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, > > and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation > > level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of > > Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New > > World Order state. > > All the best! > > > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sat Nov 16 06:29:33 1996 Received: from goodguy.goodnet.com (207.98.129.1) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:32:14 -0500 Received: from tempe-ts5-14.goodnet.com (tempe-ts5-14.goodnet.com [206.43.126.175]) by goodguy.goodnet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA12635 for <@moa.net>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:37:08 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:37:08 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199611152137.OAA12635@goodguy.goodnet.com> X-Authentication-Warning: goodnet.com: tempe-ts5-14.goodnet.com [206.43.126.175] didn't use HELO protocol Return-Receipt-To: aelyria@goodnet.com X-Sender: aelyria@mail.goodnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> From: aelyria@goodnet.com Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Hi Frederick, This is private though I also intend to answer you on srb where I think some alternate viewpoints are needed. You and I agree on many points. I, by the way, have been a Baha'i for five years and as might be expected came in via a literal interpretation -- good teacher but literal. What else is offered to most investigating the Faith? Began at about three years to have serious questions - why was the Faith not growing, why were there so many seemingly tenets that I had to 'grit my teeth and accept.' Evolution comes to mind but there were others. I firmly believe that Baha'u'llah and God have specific plans for the work each person can do to forward the Cause of God (not Faith which is just a part of the Cause as I see it). And that the necessary tools will be provided for this. Thus a year and a half ago I heard about Talisman and joined that list and nothing has been the same since. The transition-growth from a literal point of view to one that is more metaphoric hasn't been always smooth. And the realization that the Administrative Order can and does make mistakes hasn't been an easy one. And I am still not sure what my role will be. But that will come. In peace and with Baha'i love, Alma To tread the path of Love Alma Engels Is no mere game. aelyria@goodnet.com For only one thirinel@msn.com Out of many thousands Can persevere in His Love. (Tahirih) From - Sat Nov 16 06:53:23 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:40:57 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id GAA15790; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:46:07 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-20.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:47:32 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 46 Message-ID: <328DA9D4.76F9@moa.net> References: <"ioZED.A.olG.9lKjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Robert Moldenhauer CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > In article <"N28Ii.A.6ZB.Kh0iy"@bounty>, aelyria@goodnet.com says... > > > > > >I am not of Iranian descent. But it troubles me to see Iranians, > >even if it is just SOME of them, held responsible for the situation of Baha'i in > >the U.S.A. today, even if this is a digression on the part of Mr. > >Glaysher with whom I am in general agreement. > > > > I think we'd go a long way to heal wounds if we could finally do away > with "Persian worship" in the Baha'i Faith and got on with just > accepting all Baha'is as equals. > I like your phrase "Persian worship." It encapsulates part of what I'm getting at. There is a starry-eyed blind reverence among some that can lead to many misunderstandings. > There is an awful lot of pressure Western believers put on Baha'is of > Iranian descent. They expect them to somehow be holier, more > knowledgable, more Baha'i than the "rest of us." Truth be told, there > is no difference between Western believers and Iranian Baha'is. Some > are great souls, some are lost in the wilderness of materialism, but > the majority fall in between these two extremes. > A modestly balanced opinion. There are, however, often, not always, cultural differences--these aren't "put on Baha'is of Iranian descent"-- they come preacquired. [clip] > If only Westerners realised the impossible pressure they put on > Persians. Persians are expected to fix disfuctional communities, to > create the community and to answer all questions. And some are > capable of doing so, but we need to not be disappointed in the vast > majority who are "just like the rest of us." While I agree with what you're saying here, it touches on a different topic than what concerned my earlier post. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sat Nov 16 06:53:24 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:43:59 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id GAA15797; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:49:00 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-20.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:50:27 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 30 Message-ID: <328DAA83.6E8B@moa.net> References: <"QHWbcC.A.gOC.gaQjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Hedgehog CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Hedgehog wrote: > > In article <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff, > syntax@oro.net writes: > >I've had Baha'is tell me all sorts of things that > >reflected, not the teaching of the Beloved, but their > >own puny human opinions. Some of these things were > >very hurtful. I was taught the Faith by a young man > >who became my boyfriend for the purpose of bringing me > >into the Faith, then divested himself of me when he had > >done so. He later left the Faith. > > Yikes! Is there this much pressure on Baha'is to make converts? > > It seems to me that some people are sort of missing the point. A > Christian once counseled his students "Preach the Gospel to everyone! > Use words when necessary." The point being that one spreads one's > religion as much by the quality of one's character as through preaching. > Although things worked out well In Maya's case, I can imagine other cases > where great harm is done when people start using others rather than > respecting them. > > Peace, > Hedgehog Imagine? Haven't you observed it? I have. Too many times. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:32 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 08:40:51 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA19024; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 08:46:04 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Challenges of a United World? Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 08:47:31 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 38 Message-ID: <328F1773.24C4@moa.net> References: <"VLgYzD.A.1JF.2Nkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: "Jean B. Hunter" CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Jean B. Hunter wrote: > > On Friday 11/15, mmenge@dumaine.gac.edu (Matthew P Menge) wrote: > > > > Frederick Glaysher writes... > > > > >Matthew P Menge wrote: > > >> > > >> Most of human development has been the result of conflict, > > >> conflict either for natural resources, or between nations. > > >> In a united world, however, such conflicts will presumably not > > >> exist, because resources will be shared and there will be no wars. > > > > >Why do you presume that? I can't imagine a world without conflict. It > > >seems even a contradiction in terms. To my mind, while idealistic in > > >tone, on the deepest level, the Baha'i Writings suggust more profound > > >and realistic realities, if you will. > > > > I wouldn't worry about finding enough challenges to occupy humanity after > world peace is established. They will probably be much nobler challenges > than the ones that our materialistic, prestige-hungry society recognizes > now. > Jean, The kind of challenges and struggles you discussed are the some of kind of things I had in mind. Such challenges for human beings are always there. I am less sanguine, though, about other changes in the nature of the human creature. > Regards, > Jean in Ithaca -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:34 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:03:39 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19040; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:08:51 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 95 Message-ID: <328F1CC8.166E@moa.net> References: <"cWRVpD.A.rY.9Ybjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: mac13@teleport.com CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > >> [clip] > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > actions and > systems imposed upon them from above. > > With all due respect, with what I am slowly learning about > the Baha'i Faith, much authority is dervied from an > hierarchy commencing at a very local level and then > ascending. > I don't believe your local level metaphor, if you will, here quite fits. The UHJ is not a local institution.... It's members are distant and unknown to most local Baha'is. [clip] > Perhaps those people who have long held within their grasp > the reins of the people governed and whose words were so > lofty and whose deeds were so shameful will wonder if a > system based on authority and heirarchy ascending from the > local level has any chance to work, given the elements with > which it is composed. "The elements with which it is composed": Nice phrase. Echoes Shoghi Effendi somewhere or other doesn't? This is the crux of my thinking. [clip] > > You state that > "Shoghi Effendi end The Promised Day is Come with the > word "power." He obviously spent his life developing a > system based on hierarchy and authority. To call these > things "old world" is inaccurate. To observe > that power can be abused in the Baha'i Faith is not "old > world." > > I must disagree with you that my personal opinion is that > Shoghi Effendi labored those years to implement the > structure set forth by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha. Of course I agree with you here by and large. However, that structure was none too detailed.... Shoghi Effendi's study at Oxford of political philosophy provided more than a little useful background knowledge. Obvious observation, if you will, for anyone who's actually studied political philosophy. He > found ways to give it expression that did NOT entail > the abuse of "hierarchy and authority" on a descending > mode being imposed upon many... my personal opinion is that > he found ways to implement a program to ensure that > authority derived from the Institutions and the Institutions > dervied authority initially from local levels... Perhaps you're right. Give concrete examples. that is > not "Old World Order". What are those "ways"? Can you list them? I would find specific examples of them in practical application interesting.... > I am sorry that one would be incredibly disillusioned with > the Baha'i Community. It is made up of humans, lots and > lots of humans who, as I have mentioned before, have come > with much baggage from the system in which many have lived > for years. They are trying: they are not isolating as some > organizations might... fearing contamination from an outside > world. You really don't address here the original issue from the person who wrote "incredibly disillusioned with the Baha'i Community." That wasn't me. Human? That's my point. You rush past it too quickly to my mind. "Isolating"? Baha'i communities, as I have experienced them for twenty years, often seem extremely isolated and isolating.... I have often wondered why. Any ideas? > Thanks for "listening" to my comments. > Good luck, and take care. > > ---Dennis -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:36 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:36 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19045; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:12:49 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:14:08 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 25 Message-ID: <328F1DB0.66C1@moa.net> References: <"Y_AEMD.A.WNF.TQkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Cheshmak A Farhoumand CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > Dear Frederick, thank you for your response to my message. i am sorry if > i was not clear. what i meant by old world order is the old world order > definitions of power, hierarchy etc. these things off course exist in our > community but they are to be understood within a context that is > different from their conventional usage. > How are they different from "conventional usage"? I'm often not sure they're different in any way whatsoever. In regard to "context," the same human morass seems to prevail.... > it was terminology and defintion that i was pointing to and not the words > themself. > Clarify this last statement, would you? I.e., define your terms. > thank you, > cheshmak -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:38 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:16:11 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19049; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:21:20 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:22:48 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 31 Message-ID: <328F1FB8.4B41@moa.net> References: <"LjKCQ.A.QWF.QTkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: SManeck@berry.edu CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Susan Maneck wrote: > > Denis writes: > > > With all due respect, with what I am slowly learning about > > the Baha'i Faith, much authority is dervied from an > > hierarchy commencing at a very local level and then > > ascending. > > > Ideally that ought to be the case. But with the current electorial > system I'm not sure it actually works out that way. When nominations > are not allowed incumbancy is inevitable, and only those who are > already within the "spotlight" will arise to positions of power. I > don't think this is intentional on any ones part, it is a structural > problem we need to work out. > > Susan This "incumbancy" often seems the work-a-day reality in the Baha'i communities I've witnessed.... Profoundly serious problems or questions arise from this fact of how the system works. I am not sure I can honestly believe it will change with time, evaporating with every other problem, etc.... And then what of the human predilection for thrusting oneself into the "spotlight"? When I think of some elections I've observed, the individuals who have arisen to the "top," I feel many deep misgivings and worries, especially given five thousand years of recorded history.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:40 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:22:38 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19057; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:27:44 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:29:10 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 35 Message-ID: <328F2136.D09@moa.net> References: <"RiojFC.A.mcF.iXkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Barry Blackford CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Barry Blackford wrote: > > Hello there, > > You asked this question of someone.......... > > > Is such a system yet perfect? > > In my opinion, no: but that is because so many of have yet > > to set down, to discard some of our baggage from our > > previous "Old World Order", > > To me, the "Baha'i" system "is" perfect, it is us that are imperfect in > knowing how it truly works. ;-) Only the future holds the key > to its perfection, and others will come after us, shaping it into its > true form, but only as we discard the old world systems around > the world. > It's this fact of "imperfection" that the original post in this thread was trying to get at and on a deeper level then your ebullience.... > When I see the daily struggle that the friends are making to break down > their egos, and their old ways for the sake of the Cause, my heart reaches > out to them. Such sacrifice will be rewarded I am sure. > > Yours in service, > > Tricia Blackford > New Zealand May God bless you, Tricia. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:41 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:26:58 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19062; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:32:00 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Meditation Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:33:27 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 25 Message-ID: <328F2237.6ACA@moa.net> References: <"EYDpsB.A.YMF.9Pkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: aelyria@goodnet.com CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 aelyria@goodnet.com wrote: > > Bob Abrahams wrote: > > >Dhikr in the Sufi sense has the potential to > >degenerate into meaningless ritual; but on the other hand the writings are > >full of references of Remembrance of God, dhikrallah. > > You mention that dhikr can 'degenerate.' Isn't that true of all prayers? > One can say them distractedly and mechanically, for instance. Just about > anything has the potential of degenerating. > Alas, the tragic reality of the human being.... [clip] > > In peace and with Baha'i love, > Alma > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:42 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:33:02 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19067; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:38:15 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:39:41 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 32 Message-ID: <328F23AD.5569@moa.net> References: <"feMbpB.A._xG.F6Kjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Gandhimohan Viswanathan CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Gandhimohan Viswanathan wrote: > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > [a bunch of really nice stuff] > > This is all great. > > But I remind everyone there is no binding Baha'i law asking us to > marry, or to have children. > > I point out that Baha'u'llah accepted His daughter's (the Greatest Holy > Leaf's) request to stay unmarried childless woman better to serve > humanity. > > (The Guardian also had no children.) > > I think better to differentiate more clearly between binding Baha'i laws > and other Baha'i "counsels". > > Gandhi > > ps- BTW I am married :) I just am not sure it is for everyone, like > Baha'u'llah's daughter... Great. Just what we need. A precedent for a new world order of Baha'i nuns.... Actually, more I think of it, some communities are already run by such Orders.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 17 10:27:44 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:38:37 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:51 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 53 Message-ID: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> References: <"uiWV9.A.DUF.dSkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: karl1971@aol.com CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 karl1971@aol.com wrote: > [clip] > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > make love, not war. > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > or her life. > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > daughter-in-law. > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > loathsome addiction. > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > through hell in a handbasket. > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > sensual affection. > > > > -- sincerely > > -- Karl Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her veins.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:16 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:40:51 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port75.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.86]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA08025; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611171545.JAA08025@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@MOA.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:57:52 -0600 Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with us Frederick. I really appriciate it. Rick Boatright > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > To: mac13@teleport.com > Cc: @MOA.net > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > >> [clip] > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > > actions and > > systems imposed upon them from above. > > > > With all due respect, with what I am slowly learning about > > the Baha'i Faith, much authority is dervied from an > > hierarchy commencing at a very local level and then > > ascending. > > > > I don't believe your local level metaphor, if you will, here quite fits. > The UHJ is not a local institution.... It's members are distant and > unknown to most local Baha'is. > > [clip] > > > Perhaps those people who have long held within their grasp > > the reins of the people governed and whose words were so > > lofty and whose deeds were so shameful will wonder if a > > system based on authority and heirarchy ascending from the > > local level has any chance to work, given the elements with > > which it is composed. > > "The elements with which it is composed": Nice phrase. Echoes Shoghi Effendi > somewhere or other doesn't? This is the crux of my thinking. > > [clip] > > > > > You state that > > "Shoghi Effendi end The Promised Day is Come with the > > word "power." He obviously spent his life developing a > > system based on hierarchy and authority. To call these > > things "old world" is inaccurate. To observe > > that power can be abused in the Baha'i Faith is not "old > > world." > > > > I must disagree with you that my personal opinion is that > > Shoghi Effendi labored those years to implement the > > structure set forth by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha. > > Of course I agree with you here by and large. However, that structure was none > too detailed.... Shoghi Effendi's study at Oxford of political philosophy > provided more than a little useful background knowledge. Obvious observation, > if you will, for anyone who's actually studied political philosophy. > > He > > found ways to give it expression that did NOT entail > > the abuse of "hierarchy and authority" on a descending > > mode being imposed upon many... my personal opinion is that > > he found ways to implement a program to ensure that > > authority derived from the Institutions and the Institutions > > dervied authority initially from local levels... > > Perhaps you're right. Give concrete examples. > > that is > > not "Old World Order". > > What are those "ways"? Can you list them? I would find specific examples of them > in practical application interesting.... > > > I am sorry that one would be incredibly disillusioned with > > the Baha'i Community. It is made up of humans, lots and > > lots of humans who, as I have mentioned before, have come > > with much baggage from the system in which many have lived > > for years. They are trying: they are not isolating as some > > organizations might... fearing contamination from an outside > > world. > > You really don't address here the original issue from the person who wrote > "incredibly disillusioned with the Baha'i Community." That wasn't me. Human? > That's my point. You rush past it too quickly to my mind. > > "Isolating"? Baha'i communities, as I have experienced them for twenty years, > often seem extremely isolated and isolating.... I have often wondered why. > Any ideas? > > > Thanks for "listening" to my comments. > > Good luck, and take care. > > > > ---Dennis > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:21 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:02:24 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id JAA17044 for <@MOA.net>; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:31 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id JAA22964 for @MOA.net; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:31 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611171607.JAA22964@primenet.com> Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:30 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 17, 96 09:45:16 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Not suitable for the group. Tell hi mto take it to e-mail. Dick D. > From news@news2.acs.oakland.edu Sun Nov 17 07:43:51 1996 > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id HAA12476 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 07:43:50 -0700 (MST) > Received: from relay6.UU.NET by bcca.org with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0vP8Rl-0008esC; Sun, 17 Nov 96 09:43 EST > Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu by relay6.UU.NET with ESMTP > (peer crosschecked as: news2.acs.oakland.edu [141.210.10.152]) > id QQbqfq06145; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:44 -0500 (EST) > Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:51 -0500 > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 53 > Message-ID: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> > References: <"uiWV9.A.DUF.dSkjy"@bounty> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > To: karl1971@aol.com > CC: @MOA.net > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > [clip] > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > make love, not war. > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > or her life. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > daughter-in-law. > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > loathsome addiction. > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > -- Karl > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > veins.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:19 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:56:17 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port75.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.86]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA08931; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:01:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611171601.KAA08931@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@MOA.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:13:19 -0600 Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, A real, true _question_. Did you mean for this to go out to the newsgroup? The humor is apparent, the advice is probebly reasonable, but I am forced to wonder if you really ment the post to go to the newsgroup. It seems too susceptable to te kind of mis-interpretation that gets rwars started..... I therefore suspect that you ment this for private email. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > To: karl1971@aol.com > Cc: @MOA.net > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > [clip] > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > make love, not war. > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > or her life. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > daughter-in-law. > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > loathsome addiction. > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > -- Karl > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > veins.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:24 1996 Received: from alpha.tenet.edu (198.213.2.1) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 12:21:40 -0500 Received: (from haukness@localhost) by alpha.tenet.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA26861; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:26:41 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:26:40 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: bahai-faith@BCCA.Org cc: bahai-faith@BCCA.Org, @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community In-Reply-To: <"uNK23B.A.vcG.hOzjy"@bounty> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Friends: This is an incredibly important topic and I believe that it would help to distinguish between transformational change within a life time and generational transforming change. Bahaullah wrote in Seven Valleys and Four Valleys of the grammarian, standing at the shore, ever calculating his position, and then of the believer, who wades right into the ocean. There are many examples if individuals who felt the transformational power of the Baha'i Faith within their life time, Fred Mortinson, and Ali Kuli Kahn are good examples of the immediacy of revolutionary postive change, Alcoholics annyon is repleat with case studies of this process, as also many pshchaitrists have witnessed. But of course, we here are discussing societal change, something harder to conjecture, still, if we look not at a generation, but at generations, the picture becomes clearer. So we can all come to our personal conclusions, that the human is or is not being transformed as a result of Bahaullah's influence, but let us be aware, that Bahaullah tells us the earth, and humanity are being transformed, that every atom is eminating Bahaullah's vibrating influece, that no human is spared. That "this is the day that will not be followed by night." Bahaullah too, discusses that transformation takes generations to accomplish, Shoghi Effendi tells us that at this moment, we can not envision the momentousness of Bahaullah's revelation and it's eminating influence, we can only discern glimmers and slivers of light. One could go on and on quoting from the writings about this topic, as this topic, the transforming of the human, is at the very heart of what the revelation of Bahaullah is in essence. But I will quote from one source, least we stray too far from our foundation, it is from Shoghi Effendi's non-fiction-work , the last parapraph: "Whatever may befall this infant Faith of God in future decades or in succeeding centuries, whatever the sorrows, dangers and tribulations which......sill continue to gorge ahead, capturing loftier heights, tearing down every obstacle, opening up new horizons and winning still mightier victories until its glorious mission, stretching into the dim ranges of time that lie ahead, is totally fulfilled." That inhumanity has reached a critical stage there is little doubt, that backbiting exists with it's extremely detrimental consequences within the Baha'i Faith we know, indeed on a personal level this is such a painful topic for me that I am surprised I am not inactive. There are sacrifices, and then there are sacrifices, so that the world will one day become transformed. In memory of Danial and the lions. au revoir haukness@tenet.edu 2015 Bay St. N. Texas City, TX 77590 voice/fax 409-948-6074 One planet one people please! On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Susan Maneck wrote: > > > > Denis writes: > > > > > With all due respect, with what I am slowly learning about > > > the Baha'i Faith, much authority is dervied from an > > > hierarchy commencing at a very local level and then > > > ascending. > > > > > Ideally that ought to be the case. But with the current electorial > > system I'm not sure it actually works out that way. When nominations > > are not allowed incumbancy is inevitable, and only those who are > > already within the "spotlight" will arise to positions of power. I > > don't think this is intentional on any ones part, it is a structural > > problem we need to work out. > > > > Susan > > > This "incumbancy" often seems the work-a-day reality in the Baha'i communities > I've witnessed.... Profoundly serious problems or questions arise from this > fact of how the system works. I am not sure I can honestly believe it will > change with time, evaporating with every other problem, etc.... And then what > of the human predilection for thrusting oneself into the "spotlight"? When I > think of some elections I've observed, the individuals who have arisen to the > "top," I feel many deep misgivings and worries, especially given five thousand > years of recorded history.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > > From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:26 1996 Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (198.81.11.92) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:59:46 -0500 Received: by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21257 for @moa.net; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:04:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:04:54 -0500 From: KARL1971@aol.com Message-ID: <961117180453_1083116951@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: @moa.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 In a message dated 96-11-17 09:44:24 EST, you write: << Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her veins.... >> Do you know of any single ages 18-30? Karl Lehman, Oregon, USA From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:29 1996 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (129.174.1.13) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:31:35 -0500 Received: by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA15247; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:36:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:36:42 -0500 (EST) From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net, @moa.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community In-Reply-To: <328F1DB0.66C1@moa.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Dear Frederick, hello thank you for your message. i am sorry this will have to be short as i have a paper to work on. Please keep in mind that the opinions expressed are my own and i am sorry if they are disjointed. > How are they different from "conventional usage"? I'm often not sure they're > different in any way whatsoever. In regard to "context," the same human morass > seems to prevail.... In my opinion things like power, authority etc. mean different things in the Baha'i context. For example, authority implies one's given right to exert influence over others. In the world today we see so many examples of individuals and institutions (government) utilizing this authority mindless of morality and responsibility. In the Baha'i 'context' call it paradigm if that is more useful ... authority is given but he/she who has authority has responsibility not only to their constituents but to God ... this introduces an important element of morality and conscience. > Clarify this last statement, would you? I.e., define your terms. Yes, what i mean is that the same word can have different meanings and implications depending on how they are meant to be used ... power in the traditional sense has a negative conotation with the implication of abuse more often than not. Same is true with authority. what i am suggesting is that in relation to the administrative order, while those who are elected and/or appointed have certain powers and authority, these things function differently because within the Baha'i context they mean different things. they require responsibility, conscientiousness, morality etc. I hope this has clarified my thoughts. if it has not i apologize but i am in the middle of writing 4 major papers and my brain cells are experiencing burn out. regards cheshmak From - Mon Nov 18 08:30:17 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: <32905ECF.5790@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:04:15 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611171545.JAA08025@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > Rick Boatright > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > To: mac13@teleport.com > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > > >> [clip] > > > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > [cut] -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Nov 18 07:57:29 1996 Received: from pluto.scripps.edu (192.26.252.12) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:22:39 -0500 Received: from urchin.wanet.com by pluto.scripps.edu (5.64/Tenon-1.35.01) id AA03122; Sun, 17 Nov 96 21:28:31 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: hedgehog@pluto.scripps.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:28:13 -0700 To: Frederick Glaysher <@MOA.net> From: hedgehog@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 >Imagine? Haven't you observed it? I have. Too many times. I haven't had much contact with Baha'is. They seem a little tightly wound at times. Maybe I have gotten used to a more laid back approach to seeking "converts". Peace, Hedgehog From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:30 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: <32905ECF.5790@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:04:15 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611171545.JAA08025@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > Rick Boatright > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > To: mac13@teleport.com > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > > >> [clip] > > > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > [cut] -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:32 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:00:21 -0500 Message-ID: <32905F79.61AB@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:07:05 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <199611171601.KAA08931@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > A real, true _question_. Did you mean for this to go out to the > newsgroup? The humor is apparent, the advice is probebly reasonable, > but I am forced to wonder if you really ment the post to go to the > newsgroup. It seems too susceptable to te kind of mis-interpretation > that gets rwars started..... I therefore suspect that you ment > this for private email. > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > You "suspect" incorrectly. I certainly intended for my message to be posted. I'd appreciate if you'd act as a moderator and not a censor. I find you're interfering in my communication offensive. Post it. > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > [clip] > > > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > > make love, not war. > > > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > > or her life. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > > daughter-in-law. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > > loathsome addiction. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > > > -- Karl > > > > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > > veins.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:35 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:02:27 -0500 Message-ID: <32905FF7.25F8@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:09:11 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <199611171607.JAA22964@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Not suitable for the group. Tell hi mto take it to e-mail. > > Dick D. > Dick, I mean this in all seriousness. You're a fascist pig. I'd say that to your face, fellow.... > > From news@news2.acs.oakland.edu Sun Nov 17 07:43:51 1996 > > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id HAA12476 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1 > > Received: from relay6.UU.NET by bcca.org with smtp > > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0vP8Rl-0008esC; Sun, 17 Nov 96 09:43 EST > > Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu by relay6.UU.NET with ESMTP > > (peer crosschecked as: news2.acs.oakland.edu [141.210.10.152]) > > id QQbqfq06145; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:44 -0500 (EST) > > Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:51 -0500 > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 53 > > Message-ID: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> > > References: <"uiWV9.A.DUF.dSkjy"@bounty> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > [clip] > > > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > > make love, not war. > > > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > > or her life. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > > daughter-in-law. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > > loathsome addiction. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > > > -- Karl > > > > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > > veins.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:37 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:19:33 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA20961; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:24:40 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-7.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:26:05 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 65 Message-ID: <329063ED.762@moa.net> References: <"ssTb.A.jmH.RI1jy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: John Haukness CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 John Haukness wrote: > > Dear Friends: This is an incredibly important topic and I believe that it > would help to distinguish between transformational change within a life > time and generational transforming change. Bahaullah wrote in Seven > Valleys and Four Valleys of the grammarian, standing at the shore, ever > calculating his position, and then of the believer, who wades right into > the ocean. There are many examples if individuals who felt the > transformational power of the Baha'i Faith within their life time, Fred > Mortinson, and Ali Kuli Kahn are good examples of the immediacy of > revolutionary postive change, Alcoholics annyon is repleat with case > studies of this process, as also many pshchaitrists have witnessed. "Individuals." Exactly.... But > of course, we here are discussing societal change, something harder to > conjecture, still, if we look not at a generation, but at generations, > the picture becomes clearer. Much harder, indeed. So we can all come to our personal > conclusions, that the human is or is not being transformed as a result of > Bahaullah's influence, but let us be aware, that Bahaullah tells us the > earth, and humanity are being transformed, that every atom is eminating > Bahaullah's vibrating influece, that no human is spared. The earth and humanity are always being transformed. It's called change. It's been happening for millenia. The question is to what extent is change possible. That "this is > the day that will not be followed by night." Bahaullah too, discusses > that transformation takes generations to accomplish, Shoghi Effendi tells > us that at this moment, we can not envision the momentousness of > Bahaullah's revelation and it's eminating influence, we can only discern > glimmers and slivers of light. > [clip irrelevant quotation] > That inhumanity has reached a critical stage there is little doubt, that > backbiting exists with it's extremely detrimental consequences within the > Baha'i Faith we know, indeed on a personal level this is such a painful > topic for me that I am surprised I am not inactive. There are sacrifices, > and then there are sacrifices, so that the world will one day become > transformed. In memory of Danial and the lions. au revoir > Too breathless and full of assumptions for my tastes.... > haukness@tenet.edu > > > > This "incumbancy" often seems the work-a-day reality in the Baha'i communities > > I've witnessed.... Profoundly serious problems or questions arise from this > > fact of how the system works. I am not sure I can honestly believe it will > > change with time, evaporating with every other problem, etc.... And then what > > of the human predilection for thrusting oneself into the "spotlight"? When I > > think of some elections I've observed, the individuals who have arisen to the > > "top," I feel many deep misgivings and worries, especially given five thousand > > years of recorded history.... > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:39 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:23:04 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA20967; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:27:42 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-7.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incumbancy Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:29:07 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 28 Message-ID: <329064A3.15A2@moa.net> References: <56nqq6$7tc@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Rick Boatright CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Incumbancy is one of the nearly inevitable results of an election > process without nomination. It is nearly impossible to RESIGN from > an Assmbly. > > If you comuter model the election process assuming that each voter > votes for only _one_ incumbant, and that the remaining votes are > scattered amoung a group of "prominent" Baha's, (committee members, > etc.) at a community size of only 100, the re-election is totally > inevitable, and at larger community sizes the diffusion of votes for > non-members of assemblys verses the inevitable incumbancy vote, even > when reduced to 1 incumbancy vote on _every other ballot_ results in > complete re-election. > > I conclude incombancy is somthing that the founders _wanted_. It's > too much a result of the structure of the system for any other > conclusion to be viable. > You may be right. Fascinating fact or fascinating flaw.... > Rick Boatright > rboatright@bix.com -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:41 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:29:49 -0500 Message-ID: <32906661.5B19@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:36:33 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cheshmak A Farhoumand CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > Dear Frederick, hello thank you for your message. i am sorry this will > have to be short as i have a paper to work on. Please keep in mind that > the opinions expressed are my own and i am sorry if they are disjointed. > > > How are they different from "conventional usage"? I'm often not sure they're > > different in any way whatsoever. In regard to "context," the same human morass > > seems to prevail.... > > In my opinion things like power, authority etc. mean different things in > the Baha'i context. For example, authority implies one's given right to > exert influence over others. In the world today we see so many examples > of individuals and institutions (government) utilizing this authority > mindless of morality and responsibility. > > In the Baha'i 'context' call it paradigm if that is more useful ... > authority is given but he/she who has authority has responsibility not > only to their constituents but to God ... this introduces an important > element of morality and conscience. > Theoretically.... What happens when the individual is corrupt? Doesn't give a damn about God or morality but seems to, pretends to, in order to acquire control and power? Cheskmak, this is the real issue.... > > Clarify this last statement, would you? I.e., define your terms. > > Yes, what i mean is that the same word can have different meanings and > implications depending on how they are meant to be used ... power in the > traditional sense has a negative conotation with the implication of abuse > more often than not. Same is true with authority. what i am suggesting is > that in relation to the administrative order, while those who are elected > and/or appointed have certain powers and authority, these things function > differently because within the Baha'i context they mean different things. > they require responsibility, conscientiousness, morality etc. > Ideally.... ditto.... > I hope this has clarified my thoughts. if it has not i apologize but i am > in the middle of writing 4 major papers and my brain cells are > experiencing burn out. > Your definitions are too easy and idealistic.... They ignore the capacity of the human being for falsehood and treachery.... What then for the community and the individuals victims of the "holy" administrators? Read history. It's a sorry tale, East and West.... > regards > cheshmak -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:43 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:34:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3290676C.6301@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:41:00 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KARL1971@aol.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <961117180453_1083116951@emout01.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 KARL1971@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 96-11-17 09:44:24 EST, you write: > > << Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little > unsolicited > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i > women, the > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing > through her > veins.... > >> > > Do you know of any single ages 18-30? > > Karl Lehman, Oregon, USA Karl, unlike the fascists who "moderate" the newsgroup, you have a sense of humor. They've banned the post I sent you from the wires as not "suitable." Too many fanatical feminist Baha'i broads out there would have their "feelings" hurt, I guess.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 06:17:04 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:18:00 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id FAA23629; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:23:15 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: authority Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:24:37 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 48 Message-ID: <32918AE5.1B6E@moa.net> References: <56qoei$rdv@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Angelynn King CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Angelynn King wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I think it should be noted by those whose paths have not made them students > of history that the Bahai Faith is not by any means the first religion to > try to define the terms of government in a more spiritual, less worldly > way. The Pope is also supposed to be infallible; the College of Cardinals > is also supposed to be "inspired by God" in decision-making; parish priests > are also responsible for the spiritual health of their communities. Yet the > past has shown us that poor decisions are made nevertheless... > Coming from a Catholic background, vaguely, so long ago, I find your words rare and refreshing. Oh the shameless frauds of Catholic history!!! And cannot the same be said of Islam, Judaism, etc.... It's so obvious I can only laugh at the naivete of a certain starry-eyed type in the Baha'i Faith who imagine "poor decisions" haven't been, are being made, and will be made.... What concerns me the most is those willing to LIE about it.... Or CONCEAL or REWRITE events.... Truth in all its horror, in what Abdul-Baha called "this world of gloom," is preferable to me. > I guess my point is that no matter what our beliefs and aspirations, we are > still human and fallible. Spiritual pride -- the feeling that "we" are > different and will not make the mistakes made by others in the past -- is a > stumbling block to progress. "Human and fallible": I like that. A sense of proportion can come from that. Spiritual pride--hubris--can take many forms. . . all the worse when institutionalized and tyrannical.... It is only by looking to the past and > realizing how much we have in common with previous ages, not how different > we are, that we will be able to build on humanity's experience and truly > profit from it. > I like the "looking to the past." What else can inspire moderation of the fanatical transformation-of-all-reality mentality? Including transformations that aren't possible.... > My opinions, naturally. > > Angelynn -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 06:17:06 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:37:45 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id FAA23638; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:42:50 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 68 Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Sian Smith CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Sian Smith wrote: > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > >> > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > >> > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > another person). I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE reads.... It that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what is it? Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > Loving greetings > > Sian Smith > Wellington > New Zealand -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 06:17:09 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:06:28 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id GAA23652; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:08:59 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:21 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 78 Message-ID: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Anne Furlong CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Anne Furlong wrote: > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > whatsoever. "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... [clip] > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. then the > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're too quick to leap over that fact for me. We are > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > reason for our failure to love? > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community or individuals under that Tyranny? > All the best, > > Anne Furlong > St John's Newfoundland Canada -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:54 1996 Received: from goodguy.goodnet.com (207.98.129.1) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 23:16:22 -0500 Received: from Cust8.Max1.Phoenix.AZ.MS.UU.NET (Cust8.Max1.Phoenix.AZ.MS.UU.NET [153.35.225.136]) by goodguy.goodnet.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id VAA24883 for <@MOA.net>; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:21:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:21:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199611190421.VAA24883@goodguy.goodnet.com> X-Authentication-Warning: goodnet.com: Cust8.Max1.Phoenix.AZ.MS.UU.NET [153.35.225.136] didn't use HELO protocol Return-Receipt-To: aelyria@goodnet.com X-Sender: aelyria@mail.goodnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Frederick Glaysher <@MOA.net> From: aelyria@goodnet.com Subject: Re: Incumbancy X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Rick happens to be right here. I have seen studies of this on the old Talisman. This is of course exacerbated by such practices of the USA NSA having its members address the convention prior to the voting -- something it did not do this year and something that NSA's in other countries did not do. There are ways to get around this that are not prohibited in the writings. But at the moment they are not implemented. In peace, Alma >Rick Boatright wrote: >> >> Incumbancy is one of the nearly inevitable results of an election >> process without nomination. It is nearly impossible to RESIGN from >> an Assmbly. >> >> If you comuter model the election process assuming that each voter >> votes for only _one_ incumbant, and that the remaining votes are >> scattered amoung a group of "prominent" Baha's, (committee members, >> etc.) at a community size of only 100, the re-election is totally >> inevitable, and at larger community sizes the diffusion of votes for >> non-members of assemblys verses the inevitable incumbancy vote, even >> when reduced to 1 incumbancy vote on _every other ballot_ results in >> complete re-election. >> >> I conclude incombancy is somthing that the founders _wanted_. It's >> too much a result of the structure of the system for any other >> conclusion to be viable. >> > >You may be right. Fascinating fact or fascinating flaw.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Rochester, Michigan USA > > > To tread the path of Love Alma Engels Is no mere game. aelyria@goodnet.com For only one thirinel@msn.com Out of many thousands Can persevere in His Love. (Tahirih) From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:47 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:34:58 -0500 Received: from RICK (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA16177; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:39:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611181639.KAA16177@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:40:09 -0600 Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, I was trying to say two unrelated things. First, that was a really nice message. Well thought, cohesive, good writing, I was trying to give you a compliment. Second, I was expressing my gratitude that the conflict between you and the moderators a couple of weeks ago did not result in your leaving the newsgroup. I appriciate your continued participation. Rick Boatright > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:04:15 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > Cc: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > > > Rick Boatright > > > > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > > To: mac13@teleport.com > > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > > > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > > > >> [clip] > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > > > > [cut] > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:49 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:53:24 -0500 Received: from RICK (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA17797 for <@moa.net>; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:57:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611181657.KAA17797@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:58:04 -0600 Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 And in your internal model, what is the difference between a moderator and a censor? I asked a polite question. Did you intend to post this? Lots of people post things they didn't intend to, and we catch a lot of those. They are generally greatful. I didn't complain that you characterize Baha'i women as bloodless. I probebly should. I didn't complain that your comment was bigoted and offensive to the vast majority of sexually active and spirited Baha'i women, though I probebly should. Let them tell you that themselves. I asked a polite question. Lighten up. Don't try to put a nazi mantle on my shoulders. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:07:05 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > Cc: @moa.net > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > A real, true _question_. Did you mean for this to go out to the > > newsgroup? The humor is apparent, the advice is probebly reasonable, > > but I am forced to wonder if you really ment the post to go to the > > newsgroup. It seems too susceptable to te kind of mis-interpretation > > that gets rwars started..... I therefore suspect that you ment > > this for private email. > > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > You "suspect" incorrectly. I certainly intended for my message to be posted. > I'd appreciate if you'd act as a moderator and not a censor. > > I find you're interfering in my communication offensive. Post it. > > > > > > > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > [clip] > > > > > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > > > make love, not war. > > > > > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > > > or her life. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > > > daughter-in-law. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > > > loathsome addiction. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > > > > > -- Karl > > > > > > > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > > > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > > > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > > > veins.... > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:52 1996 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (129.174.1.13) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:28:25 -0500 Received: by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA01200; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:33:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Cc: @moa.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community In-Reply-To: <32906661.5B19@moa.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Hi Frederick, > Theoretically.... What happens when the individual is corrupt? Doesn't give > a damn about God or morality but seems to, pretends to, in order to acquire > control and power? Cheskmak, this is the real issue.... yes, off course you are right. there are such individuals. What i am suggesting though is that if the Baha'is are deepened and know how to vote and what to look for in who they vote for ... corrupt people would not get elected. and say i vote for someone on the LSA and they turn out to be really awful...well, i just don't vote for them next year. the point is that the administrative order doesn't function the same way that elections say for local or national governments do. i see your point and it is a good one, but i was talking strictly in the Baha'i context. But as a Baha'i i am sure you are familiar with the election process and all that so i won't elaborate. > Your definitions are too easy and idealistic.... They ignore the capacity of > the human being for falsehood and treachery.... What then for the community > and the individuals victims of the "holy" administrators? Read history. It's > a sorry tale, East and West.... Maybe so, that is why i am in peace and conflict studies .... i am an idealist by nature. no, humans can be treacherous, awful, evil, corrupt, immoral etc. but the threat started off talking about people serving on Baha'i institutions and my experience has been that people do not strive to be on an institution because it gives them power etc. if elected, they strive to serve it to the best of their ability. if there is the odd one who is not deserving of such service (and i have yet to meet one) then there is mechanisms to prevent continuation of their behaviour ... Anyway, i am confused in our discussion as it seems to me that you are sharing thoughts that apply to the way things operate in traditional political institutions in which case i am in complete agreement with you but i am talking about Baha'i administration. talk to you soon, cheshmak From - Tue Nov 19 04:56:44 1996 Received: from li.oro.net (198.68.62.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:42:34 -0500 Received: from oro.net (root@Au.oro.net [198.68.62.42]) by li.oro.net (8.7.4/8.8.96-smj) with ESMTP id HAA15177 for <@moa.net>; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:47:43 -0800 Received: from red-oktobr (syntax.oro.net [204.119.228.84]) by oro.net (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA09378 for <@moa.net>; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:47:39 -0800 Message-ID: <32908412.2C44@oro.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:43:14 -0800 From: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff Organization: SFWA X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> <328C806E.295C@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > A tiresome old song that misses the point. And what point would that be? > > > > You're too quick to brush aside the arrogance at the front > of the room. All human organizations can become oppressive. > The Baha'i Faith is no different. The Eternal question has > always been, what are the mechanisms for dealing with it? No, the Eternal question is, why do some people insist on seeing and concentrating their energies on the negative in human nature rather than dealing with it in the way Baha'u'llah and every other Manifestation of God indicated was the only way to deal with it? By countering it with love, with compassion, with patience, with steadfastness. > It is this type of abuse of authority that needs to be > confronted more candidly. Pardon me, but being viewed as a shiksa by either my husband's Jewish mother or by Persian Bahai's is not an abuse of authority -- it's a human failing on the part of the individuals who view me in this light. It may be failing on my part if I don't try to correct their view of me, but it is a far grosser failing if I resent them for their views and let myself become embittered by it. I won't change anything by lashing out in anger, or by intentional alienation. Worst of all if I separate myself from the entire Baha'i community and Baha'u'allah because of these people, I'm only doing myself a disservice. If they're really my enemies, then my being a "weak sister" would be quite pleasing to them. > We are too sappy and loving and forgiving > and forebearing and looking-the-other-way, while wolves eat the > young.... Mature structures address such proclivities. I'm not saying we should forgive every sin of excess or arrogance, but while an Sprititual assembly may deal with these things with justice, we as individual must deal with them with mercy. Buddha said: Hatred does not cease by hatred, hatred ceases by love. This isn't being sappy, it's understanding that the Manfestation of God is sharing with us a truth, a spiritual fact. I've been on spritiual assemblies that had to deal with how an individual's behavior was affecting the community as a whole. It was difficult, but as you say, mature structures address such proclivities. As an individual, I still had to treat the subject of consultation with compassion. > You're brushing aside too easily the seriousness of the issue. Am I indeed? Perhaps. But you seem also to have brushed aside the power of the word of Baha'u'llah as if it were of no consequence. He has given us means of dealing with these things on a spiritual level; Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi had given means to deal with these things on a community level. If we avail ourselves of these means with the intention of getting at the truth or seeing justice served, we will see results. If we, hovever, go to the institutions with minds bent on revenge and a preconceived idea of how they should punish the miscreants, we'll never be satisfied. Worse, if we do nothing but allow our disillusionment to sour us, we accomplish nothing. The offenders are unscathed and we will have lost out as well. BTW, I responded to a post about disillusionment at the hands of individual Baha'is, not about conspiracies or institutional corruption. I'm not sure we're even on the same page. +----------------------------------------+ | Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syntax@oro.net | +----------------------------------------+ | "The beginning of all things is the | | knowledge of God." - Baha'u'llah | +----------------------------------------+ From - Tue Nov 19 06:17:01 1996 Received: from pobox.leidenuniv.nl (132.229.8.12) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:04:00 -0500 Received: from rulb-21.LeidenUniv.nl by pobox.leidenuniv.nl with SMTP id AA25275 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for <@moa.net>); Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:08:40 +0100 Message-Id: <199611191008.AA25275@pobox.leidenuniv.nl> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Sen McGlinn" Organization: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:08:07 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: politics & religion (was review etc.) Reply-To: S.Mc_Glinn@ThuisNet.LeidenUniv.NL Cc: @moa.net Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 I referred to the religious and civil orders (church and state) as separated and cooperating. Frederick asked if I thought this would in practice happen. Yes and No. That the religious and civil orders in a Baha'i society would remain separated is clear, if only because the Faith has a clear authority structure and is text-oriented. The Guardian, who was the authorized interpreter of the Baha'i Writings said that the Baha'is should not " under any circumstances"..." allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries." ( in World Order of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h, p. 66). Since the line of the guardians has ended, there is no-one with the authority to cancell or re-interpret this. Thus even if my reading of Baha'u'llah's writings (ie that He advocates permanent formal separation of church & state *and* cooperation between elected representatives, hereditary monarchs, religious authorities and other social interests) - even if this view of the ultimate aim is not accepted and some Baha'is or some Baha'i institutions think that a theocratic state is ultimately desirable, there is just no way we can get there from here. If separation is permanent, then some sort of accomodation and patterns of working together will be worked out in practice in every society. And this will probably seldom attain an ideal of harmony & synergy - this is the real world, and perfection remains only an ultimate goal. There is a similar pair-relationship within the Baha'i administrative order between elected institutions (Spiritual Assemblies or Houses of Justice) and appointed institutions (Counsellors, their auxilliary boards, and *their* local assistants). Does it work in practice? well it works a lot better than having only one hierarchical structure would - there is at the least an alternative line of communication and action if the institutions on one side are gridlocked. And it doesn't work perfectly - the elected institutions have been known to be jealous of the freedom of the appointed institutions to set and persue their own agendas (which may have little relationship to the Plan (with a mental capital P) which the elected institutions are persuing. And appointed people have been known to step outside their role and start administering things. Each side has to really understand the other for the cooperation to work, and I think this understanding is growing, gradually. But it is already 'working in practice' to some extent. Likewise the church-state relation: I don't expect it ever to be perfectly resolved. Next to the relationship between men & women, this is the most fundamental social differentiation. It is an issue in one way or other in every society I know of. If someone proposes one solution as permanent and complete (whether that be theocracy or separation in hermetic compartments), I know they haven't grasped the issue. Body & soul, faith and knowledge, male & female, church & state, and should I start with peanut butter or jam. Some issues are meant to be lived with, not resolved. PS: just to complicate things: I have talked about the relationship between the state and Baha'i institutions with the implication that the Baha'i institutions concerned would be the elected (ie administrative) institutions. But from the quote in my tagline regarding the Mashriq'ul-adhkar and the reference to the appointed institutions above, you can see that the Baha'i Faith has a rather complex internal structure. Maybe it makes more sense to think about the relationship between the state (eg the local government) and the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar (house of worship, or 'church' in the NT sense of a body of people worshipping together rather than a church organisation). After all the Mashriq is the crowning institution of the community, and is also the institution most open to the world, it is "God's universal House of Worship", a home for all peoples, rather than a club for the true believers. And the institutions where church-state is a Big Question - such as schools - are dependencies of the Mashriq'ul-adhkar rather than extensions of the elected institutions. So this may be the place where a good working relationship with the state institutions matters most. Sen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sen McGlinn Sen.McGlinn@Bahai.NL *** Let the friends recall and ever bear in mind the repeated exhortations and glowing promises of our beloved Master with reference to the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, the crowning institution in every Baha'i community. (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, page 108) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:04 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: <329198F1.4AD4@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:24:33 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aelyria@goodnet.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incumbancy References: <199611190421.VAA24883@goodguy.goodnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 aelyria@goodnet.com wrote: > > Rick happens to be right here. I have seen studies of this on the old > Talisman. This is of course exacerbated by such practices of the USA NSA > having its members address the convention prior to the voting -- I witnessed this once at a National Convention.... Profoundly frightened me.... something > it did not do this year and something that NSA's in other countries did not > do. There are ways to get around this that are not prohibited in the > writings. But at the moment they are not implemented. > > In peace, > Alma > > >Rick Boatright wrote: > >> > >> Incumbancy is one of the nearly inevitable results of an election > >> process without nomination. It is nearly impossible to RESIGN from > >> an Assmbly. > > > >You may be right. Fascinating fact or fascinating flaw.... > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:05 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:28:51 -0500 Message-ID: <32919B88.7907@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:35:36 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611181639.KAA16177@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > I was trying to say two unrelated things. > > First, that was a really nice message. Well thought, cohesive, good > writing, I was trying to give you a compliment. > I don't need nor want your unsolicted editorial comments BIG BROTHER. I want the freedom to speak the conscience God has given me and the freedom to be responded to by OTHERS' unconstrained consciences. Stay out of the way. > Second, I was expressing my gratitude that the conflict between you > and the moderators a couple of weeks ago did not result in your > leaving the newsgroup. I appriciate your continued participation. > I feel nothing but contempt for the way you and Richard Detweiler have handled my postings. Make no mistake in that regard. Neither one of you, or anybody, has the prescience to exercise such power and control over others' consciences. The abuse of your power is a proper subject for discussion on the newsgroup. > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > > > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > > > > > Rick Boatright > > > > > > > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:07 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:41:09 -0500 Message-ID: <32919E6A.414D@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:47:54 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <199611181657.KAA17797@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > And in your internal model, what is the difference between a > moderator and a censor? See previous message to you. I asked a polite question. Did you intend > to post this? I sent it to the newsgroup, didn't I? Lots of people post things they didn't intend to, and > we catch a lot of those. In such cases, you'd be properly assisting discussion. They are generally greatful. I didn't > complain that you characterize Baha'i women as bloodless. Why should you? What business is it of yours? I'm not writing to you, nor do I want to. Yet here I am stuck in a non-productive task dealing with you and Richard.... I probebly > should. Why should you. Who the hell are you? I didn't complain that your comment was bigoted and > offensive to the vast majority of sexually active and spirited Baha'i > women, though I probebly should. A complaint you're entitled to make. In public. In response to me on the Net. Not shunting anything YOU don't like off into obscurity. Let them tell you that themselves. > I am saying the freedom for them to say so should be extended to them. You are robbing them of that God-given freedom of expression of conscience. > I asked a polite question. > > Lighten up. > Don't tell me to lighten up when you and Richard are perverting and screening the newsgroup self-righteous, prudishly suppressing opinions you don't like. Again, who are you two to make such decisions? Do you really imagine God has given you the ability to make such judgements? > Don't try to put a nazi mantle on my shoulders. > It's already there, Rick. Wake up. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:08 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:49:52 -0500 Message-ID: <3291A074.7288@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:56:36 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cheshmak A Farhoumand CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > Hi Frederick, > > > Theoretically.... What happens when the individual is corrupt? Doesn't give > > a damn about God or morality but seems to, pretends to, in order to acquire > > control and power? Cheskmak, this is the real issue.... > > yes, off course you are right. there are such individuals. Let's be clear about it. In the BAHA'I FAITH. What i am > suggesting though is that if the Baha'is are deepened and know how to > vote and what to look for in who they vote for ... corrupt people would > not get elected. Ideally. Reality always falls short of the ideal. That's my point. and say i vote for someone on the LSA and they turn out > to be really awful...well, i just don't vote for them next year. the > point is that the administrative order doesn't function the same way that > elections say for local or national governments do. i see your point and > it is a good one, but i was talking strictly in the Baha'i context. But > as a Baha'i i am sure you are familiar with the election process and all > that so i won't elaborate. > > > Your definitions are too easy and idealistic.... They ignore the capacity of > > the human being for falsehood and treachery.... What then for the community > > and the individuals victims of the "holy" administrators? Read history. It's > > a sorry tale, East and West.... > > Maybe so, that is why i am in peace and conflict studies .... i am an > idealist by nature. no, humans can be treacherous, awful, evil, corrupt, > immoral etc. but the threat started off talking about people serving on > Baha'i institutions and my experience has been that people do not strive > to be on an institution because it gives them power etc. if elected, they > strive to serve it to the best of their ability. if there is the odd one > who is not deserving of such service (and i have yet to meet one) then > there is mechanisms to prevent continuation of their behaviour ... > What are the "mechanisms"? Do you know? How do they work? Do they work? This EVIL is whole crux of why the Founders of at least American democracy created a balanced system of government that ensured it would not work at times.... Linger on that fact. In order to prevent such individuals from convulsing or controlling society entirely.... What does the Faith have to offer to protect against such individuals? > Anyway, i am confused in our discussion as it seems to me that you are > sharing thoughts that apply to the way things operate in traditional > political institutions in which case i am in complete agreement with you > but i am talking about Baha'i administration. > Theoretically there's supposed to be a difference. In reality, as it functions, or could potentially function, I'm not sure that there is. Are you? > talk to you soon, > cheshmak -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:11 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:10:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3291A53E.78A1@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:17:02 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> <328C806E.295C@moa.net> <32908412.2C44@oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > A tiresome old song that misses the point. > > And what point would that be? > > > Give me back the context and I'll tell you. > > > > You're too quick to brush aside the arrogance at the front > > of the room. All human organizations can become oppressive. > > The Baha'i Faith is no different. The Eternal question has > > always been, what are the mechanisms for dealing with it? > > No, the Eternal question is, why do some people insist on > seeing and concentrating their energies on the negative > in human nature rather than dealing with it in the way > Baha'u'llah and every other Manifestation of God indicated > was the only way to deal with it? By countering it with > love, with compassion, with patience, with steadfastness. > Maya, you're a loving soul, I'm sure. One that means well always. You're missing the sense I have here of "mechanisms." > > It is this type of abuse of authority that needs to be > > confronted more candidly. > > Pardon me, but being viewed as a shiksa by either my > husband's Jewish mother or by Persian Bahai's is not > an abuse of authority -- it's a human failing on the > part of the individuals who view me in this light. I entirely agree with you. Don't get me wrong. I don't approve of it. That may have been the earlier point. It > may be failing on my part if I don't try to correct > their view of me, but it is a far grosser failing if > I resent them for their views and let myself become > embittered by it. I won't change anything by lashing > out in anger, or by intentional alienation. Worst of all > if I separate myself from the entire Baha'i community > and Baha'u'allah because of these people, I'm only > doing myself a disservice. If they're really my enemies, > then my being a "weak sister" would be quite pleasing > to them. > You're a lovely soul. A more pious answer than I can muster. > > We are too sappy and loving and forgiving > > and forebearing and looking-the-other-way, while wolves eat the > > young.... Mature structures address such proclivities. > > I'm not saying we should forgive every sin of excess or > arrogance, but while an Sprititual assembly may deal with these > things with justice, we as individual must deal with them > with mercy. > How will they deal with such things? What are the mechanisms? For "Evil is the Nature of Mankind." > Buddha said: Hatred does not cease by hatred, hatred ceases > by love. > Tell that to the Tibetans who have had their whole civilization wiped out.... > This isn't being sappy, it's understanding that the Manfestation > of God is sharing with us a truth, a spiritual fact. I've been > on spritiual assemblies that had to deal with how an individual's > behavior was affecting the community as a whole. It was difficult, > but as you say, mature structures address such proclivities. They must. Let's be practical. What though when Assemblies self- righteously abuse their authority and persecute individuals? That can happen too, and then what? As > an individual, I still had to treat the subject of consultation > with compassion. > A very dehumanizing phrase, Maya. It seems to me. This human tendency worries me. Don't tell me to pray about it. > > You're brushing aside too easily the seriousness of the issue. > > Am I indeed? Perhaps. But you seem also to have brushed aside > the power of the word of Baha'u'llah as if it were of no > consequence. No, it can inspire to hope and decency. Rare virtues on this plane. He has given us means of dealing with these things > on a spiritual level; Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi had > given means to deal with these things on a community level. Ideally, we hope. If > we avail ourselves of these means with the intention of > getting at the truth or seeing justice served, we will see results. > If we, hovever, go to the institutions with minds bent on > revenge and a preconceived idea of how they should punish > the miscreants, we'll never be satisfied. Worse, if we > do nothing but allow our disillusionment to sour us, we > accomplish nothing. The offenders are unscathed and > we will have lost out as well. > Reasonable. Many in the Faith thinks this way. I do too in some regards. But then we're no longer in a world of ideal beauty.... > BTW, I responded to a post about disillusionment at the hands > of individual Baha'is, not about conspiracies or institutional > corruption. I'm not sure we're even on the same page. > My post, I believe, was about the individual capacity to sully anything and everything in "this world of gloom." -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:15 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:25:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3291A8C0.1E75@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:32:00 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S.Mc_Glinn@ThuisNet.LeidenUniv.NL CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: politics & religion (was review etc.) References: <199611191008.AA25275@pobox.leidenuniv.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Sen McGlinn wrote: > = > I referred to the religious and civil orders (church and state) as > separated and cooperating. Frederick asked if I thought this would in > practice happen. > = > Yes and No. That the religious and civil orders in a Baha'i society > would remain separated is clear, Theoretically, at least. if only because the Faith has a > clear authority structure and is text-oriented. The Guardian, who was > the authorized interpreter of the Baha'i Writings said that the > Baha'is should not " under any circumstances"..." allow > the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of > their respective countries." ( in World Order of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h, p. > 66). = Presupposed, anticipates the need to say it, i.e., the existence of the problem. Since the line of the guardians has ended, there is no-one with > the authority to cancell or re-interpret this. Thus even if my > reading of Baha'u'llah's writings (ie that He advocates permanent > formal separation of church & state *and* cooperation between > elected representatives, hereditary monarchs, religious authorities > and other social interests) - even if this view of the ultimate aim > is not accepted and some Baha'is or some Baha'i institutions think > that a theocratic state is ultimately desirable, there is just no way > we can get there from here. > = I don't know the future. I can't be so optimistic. > If separation is permanent, then some sort of accomodation and > patterns of working together will be worked out in practice in every > society. And this will probably seldom attain an ideal of harmony & > synergy - this is the real world, and perfection remains only an > ultimate goal. Exactly what worries me. The glorious vision is tainted by the human material.... There is a similar pair-relationship within the > Baha'i administrative order between elected institutions (Spiritual > Assemblies or Houses of Justice) and appointed institutions > (Counsellors, their auxilliary boards, and *their* local assistants). > Does it work in practice? well it works a lot better than having only > one hierarchical structure would - there is at the least an > alternative line of communication and action if the institutions on > one side are gridlocked. And it doesn't work perfectly - the elected > institutions have been known to be jealous of the freedom of the > appointed institutions to set and persue their own agendas (which may > have little relationship to the Plan (with a mental capital P) which > the elected institutions are persuing. And appointed people have been > known to step outside their role and start administering things. Each > side has to really understand the other for the cooperation to work, > and I think this understanding is growing, gradually. But it is > already 'working in practice' to some extent. > = > Likewise the church-state relation: I don't expect it ever to be > perfectly resolved. = Alas, I think you're right. Next to the relationship between men & women, > this is the most fundamental social differentiation. Tell that to some of the fanatical women in the Faith! It is an issue > in one way or other in every society I know of. If someone proposes > one solution as permanent and complete (whether that be theocracy or > separation in hermetic compartments), I know they haven't grasped the > issue. Body & soul, faith and knowledge, male & female, church & > state, and should I start with peanut butter or jam. Some issues are > meant to be lived with, not resolved. > = I relish the complexity and regret its absence from so much discussion in the Baha'i Faith. I can't imagine the Faith ever really amounting = to anything without such complexity.... > PS: just to complicate things: I have talked about the relationship > between the state and Baha'i institutions with the implication that > the Baha'i institutions concerned would be the elected (ie > administrative) institutions. But from the quote in my tagline > regarding the Mashriq'ul-adhkar and the reference to the appointed > institutions above, you can see that the Baha'i Faith has a rather > complex internal structure. Maybe it makes more sense to think about > the relationship between the state (eg the local government) and the > Mashriqu'l-Adhkar (house of worship, or 'church' in the NT sense of a > body of people worshipping together rather than a church > organisation). After all the Mashriq is the crowning institution of > the community, and is also the institution most open to the world, Though if Feast is held there, it's definitely not "open to the world." > it is "God's universal House of Worship", a home for all peoples, > rather than a club for the true believers. And the > institutions where church-state is a Big Question - such as schools - > are dependencies of the Mashriq'ul-adhkar rather than extensions of > the elected institutions. So this may be the place where a good > working relationship with the state institutions matters most. > = > Sen > = > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sen McGlinn Sen.McGlinn@Bahai.NL > *** > Let the friends recall and ever bear in mind > the repeated exhortations and glowing promises of our beloved Master > with reference to the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, > the crowning institution in every Baha'i community. > = > (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, page 108) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- = Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:28 1996 Received: from li.oro.net (198.68.62.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:03:25 -0500 Received: from oro.net (root@Au.oro.net [198.68.62.42]) by li.oro.net (8.7.4/8.8.96-smj) with ESMTP id HAA29508 for <@moa.net>; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:08:33 -0800 Received: from red-oktobr (syntax.oro.net [204.119.228.84]) by oro.net (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA17528 for <@moa.net>; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:08:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3291CC64.9F@oro.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:04:04 -0800 From: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff Organization: SFWA X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> <328C806E.295C@moa.net> <32908412.2C44@oro.net> <3291A53E.78A1@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > It > > may be failing on my part if I don't try to correct > > their view of me, but it is a far grosser failing if > > I resent them for their views and let myself become > > embittered by it. I won't change anything by lashing > > out in anger, or by intentional alienation. Worst of all > > if I separate myself from the entire Baha'i community > > and Baha'u'allah because of these people, I'm only > > doing myself a disservice. If they're really my enemies, > > then my being a "weak sister" would be quite pleasing > > to them. > > > > You're a lovely soul. A more pious answer than I can muster. Piety has nothing to do with it. It's common sense. If we are to unify, we must be unified. Unity can never be served by anger or alienation. The only way to get rid of darkness is to throw light on it. More darkness only conduces to, well... more darkness. > > How will they deal with such things? What are the mechanisms? > For "Evil is the Nature of Mankind." The mechanisms are those clearly laid down by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. They involve a certain giving up of self, consultation, respect, courtesy and other attributes with which God has fully invested us. I have served on assemblies for over 15 years. I've seen this at work. Sometimes we need reminders, sometimes we fail utterly, but the fact that we try is of paramount importance and has great power. ""Evil is the Nature of Mankind?" Not according to Baha'u'llah: "O Son of the Wondrous Vision! I have breathed upon thee a breath of My own Spirit that thou mayest be My lover. Why hast thou forsaken me and sought a beloved other than Me?" "O Son of Spirit! Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then, unto that for which thou wast created." These passages and others make it clear that it is our nature to be noble. The other part is nurture. We learn deceit and we teach it to others. We learn hatred and we pass it along like a disease. > > Buddha said: Hatred does not cease by hatred, hatred ceases > > by love. > > > > Tell that to the Tibetans who have had their whole civilization > wiped out.... They understand this better than anyone. What, after all, nearly wiped out their civilization? Hatred and fear of what was different and not controllable by the powers that would be. > They must. Let's be practical. What though when Assemblies self- > righteously abuse their authority and persecute individuals? That > can happen too, and then what? If a person feels he is being persecuted he has recourse to the Auxiliary Board, another spiritual assembly, the National Spiritual Assembly or even the House of Justice. Any and all of these avenues of redress is open to the individual. Of course, there is always the possibility that the individual's perception that he's being "persecuted" is false. It's never pleasant to be wrong about something, less pleasant to have someone call your attention to it and ask that your behavior change. I know this from personal experience. > > As > > an individual, I still had to treat the subject of consultation > > with compassion. > > > > A very dehumanizing phrase, Maya. It seems to me. This human tendency > worries me. Don't tell me to pray about it. I'm sorry. I certainly didn't intend it to be. I intended it to be neutral. Look, I have served on assemblies long enough to have seen a gamut of personal problems and situations arise. I have NEVER known an assembly to EVER lose sight of the fact that what they were dealing with wasn't a problem, but a person. Usually, the person is much loved, and their situation causes the members of the institution very personal grief. The sad thing is that the soul involved doesn't always realize this. And regardless of the actual feelings of the assembly members, treats them as if they were indeed, a persecuting force. One young man an assembly I sat on counseled had a drug problem for which he refused to get help. He viewed the mere fact that the assembly called him for consultation as an act of personal persecution. He thought the people on the assembly were "out to get him," when in fact, every one of them loved him, valued him and wanted him to be well both spiritually and physically. After one meeting in which we had attempted to talk to him, several members of the assembly burst into tears. > > Reasonable. Many in the Faith thinks this way. I do too in some regards. > But then we're no longer in a world of ideal beauty.... But Baha'u'llah is clear that His teachings and the power released by His revelation have the capacity to light that spark He says lies latent within us. I've seen what that spark can accomplish in the lives of ordinary human beings. We have within our grasp the means of bringing that world of ideal beauty out of the realm of spirit and onto this earth. The scriptures of God's faith in every age proclaim this unequivocally. > My post, I believe, was about the individual capacity to sully anything > and everything in "this world of gloom." May I call you Eeyore? :) (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) In the Kitab-i-Iqan, Baha'u'llah says that when we truly accept Him, recognize Him, the Holy Spirit will confer upon us "a new ear, a new eye, a new heart and a new mind." We are capable of being transformed, and the Word of God (and only the Word of God ) is capable of causing that transformation. I am deeply sorry that your experience within the Baha'i community has been so negative. But every negative experience in life offers us more than one way to react. I've often marveled how adversity can make one person opt for a life of misery and recrimination (it was mother's fault, it was God's fault, it was...) and another come to the decision that they will simply NOT let that adversity steal their joy, or their life. I know there are Baha'i communities that are ruled by a small clique of set in stone believers, or groups where a number of petty-minded souls seem to have things in control. Indeed, I have a friend who lived in such a community until a new Baha'i family moved in and changed the dynamics of the situation. My friend chose to deal with the problem by withdrawing. The new friends set about and accomplished the renewal of that community by opening their house to firesides, getting the assembly to meet, teaching the faith, and most important, showering everyone in their community, including those set in stone souls with love. They gave the community the medicine Baha'u'llah prescribed and saved the patient. You may argue against the idea that hatred ceases only through love, but this is a prescription from a Physician who knows far more about the ills of human kind than either you or I. Mir, Maya +----------------------------------------+ | Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syntax@oro.net | +----------------------------------------+ | "The beginning of all things is the | | knowledge of God." - Baha'u'llah | +----------------------------------------+ From - Wed Nov 20 08:41:55 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:33:09 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA26157; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:38:26 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Power in the Baha'i community Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:39:45 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 79 Message-ID: <32930A21.7B47@moa.net> References: <56tfo6$cgg@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: "Rowe, Thomas" CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Rowe, Thomas wrote: > > All this discussion about power prompts me to stick this in from the > perspective of social psychology. Social power is the ability to get > another person to do as you wish them to do. There are 5 bases for > power: > > *Reward power: Based on the ability to hand out rewards. > *Punative power: Based on the ability to hand out punishments. > *Expert power: Based on having useful knowledge. > *Legitimate power: Based on an external agency which holds authority by > virtue of both persons being voluntarily within that agency. > *Referent power: Based on a desire to emulate. > > Now examine these within the context of the Baha'i community. > > Reward power. Neither institutions nor individuals hold any reward > power. > False. Institutions and individuals have reward power, officially and unofficially. > Punative. No individual holds such power. The institutions hold only > the power to withdraw administrative rights (see legitimate, below). > Beyond that, they don't have any punative power. > False. Both have punitive power legitimately and socially. > Expert. This is entirely up to the individual. No doubt, for many of > us, some prominent Baha'is, especially those appointed to the > "intelligensia" of the Faith - the Continental Board of Counsellors and > the Auxilliary Board Members - hold a measure of this. However, we are > also warned that true spiritual knowledge can be found in many places, > including the unlettered, and that often the well learned do not know > the answers. > Indeed, they do.... As a functional clergy of sorts, call them what you like, they can wield power over others.... Power of various types. > Legitimate. By virtue of joining the Faith I accede to the > adminstrative bodies (specifically the National Spiritual Assembly of > the U.S. and the Universal House of Justice) the power to determine my > status within the community. They hold no other power over me. > It takes my breath away.... I believe the individual has the volitional power in this regard. Or, alas, this passage suggests the opposite of what you seem to think it does.... > Referent. This is a subtle but powerful force. My desire to be able to > live the life that certain others live is a powerful influence. And if > one of them suggested some action to me, it would carry a lot of weight. > But not even the most revered Baha'i could _force_ me to act in a > specific way. And I can't imagine a person whom I would label "revered" > trying to. > Read more history and use your imagination a little more.... > Result: Unlike secular governments which can jail you for bad behavior, > there really are no mechanisms in the Baha'i Faith to exert coercive > social power. Whatever power is there occurs because the individuals > allow themselves to be influenced. > Utterly false. "Coercive social power" is a reality in ever form of organization. It needn't be the terror of communist China or the former USSR, physical or psychological, to exert still an influence upon both individuals and groups of people. > Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 10:11:01 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:19:22 -0500 Message-ID: <329314FD.2259@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:26:05 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> <328C806E.295C@moa.net> <32908412.2C44@oro.net> <3291A53E.78A1@moa.net> <3291CC64.9F@oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > It > > > may be failing on my part if I don't try to correct > > > their view of me, but it is a far grosser failing if > > > I resent them for their views and let myself become > > > embittered by it. I won't change anything by lashing > > > out in anger, or by intentional alienation. Worst of all > > > if I separate myself from the entire Baha'i community > > > and Baha'u'allah because of these people, I'm only > > > doing myself a disservice. If they're really my enemies, > > > then my being a "weak sister" would be quite pleasing > > > to them. > > > > > > > You're a lovely soul. A more pious answer than I can muster. > > Piety has nothing to do with it. It's common sense. If we are > to unify, we must be unified. Unity can never be served by > anger or alienation. The only way to get rid of darkness is > to throw light on it. More darkness only conduces to, well... > more darkness. > > To my mind, after twenty years in the Baha'i Faith, the "unity" is a fraud, doesn't exist.... > > How will they deal with such things? What are the mechanisms? > > For "Evil is the Nature of Mankind." > > The mechanisms are those clearly laid down by Baha'u'llah, > Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. They involve a certain > giving up of self, consultation, respect, courtesy and > other attributes with which God has fully invested us. If these are the "mechanisms," they're insufficient. > I have served on assemblies for over 15 years. I've seen > this at work. Sometimes we need reminders, sometimes we > fail utterly, but the fact that we try is of paramount > importance and has great power. > > ""Evil is the Nature of Mankind?" Not according to > Baha'u'llah: > > "O Son of the Wondrous Vision! I have breathed upon thee > a breath of My own Spirit that thou mayest be My lover. > Why hast thou forsaken me and sought a beloved other > than Me?" > > "O Son of Spirit! Noble have I created thee, yet thou > hast abased thyself. Rise then, unto that for which > thou wast created." > > These passages and others make it clear that it is > our nature to be noble. Antinomy is presupposed. There is tragedy in Baha'u'llah's writings, tragedy minds like yours (I mean no insult), typically fail to understand. The other part is nurture. > We learn deceit and we teach it to others. We learn > hatred and we pass it along like a disease. > > > > Buddha said: Hatred does not cease by hatred, hatred ceases > > > by love. > > > > > > > Tell that to the Tibetans who have had their whole civilization > > wiped out.... > > They understand this better than anyone. What, after all, > nearly wiped out their civilization? Hatred and fear of what > was different and not controllable by the powers that would > be. > Even the Dali Lama has had second thoughts.... Much too late. > > They must. Let's be practical. What though when Assemblies self- > > righteously abuse their authority and persecute individuals? That > > can happen too, and then what? > > If a person feels he is being persecuted he has recourse to > the Auxiliary Board, another spiritual assembly, the National > Spiritual Assembly or even the House of Justice. Any and all > of these avenues of redress is open to the individual. Of > course, there is always the possibility that the individual's > perception that he's being "persecuted" is false. It's never > pleasant to be wrong about something, less pleasant to have > someone call your attention to it and ask that your behavior > change. I know this from personal experience. > > > > > As > > > an individual, I still had to treat the subject of consultation > > > with compassion. > > > > > > > A very dehumanizing phrase, Maya. It seems to me. This human tendency > > worries me. Don't tell me to pray about it. > > I'm sorry. I certainly didn't intend it to be. I intended it to be > neutral. Look, I have served on assemblies long enough to have > seen a gamut of personal problems and situations arise. I have > NEVER known an assembly to EVER lose sight of the fact that > what they were dealing with wasn't a problem, but a person. > Usually, the person is much loved, and their situation causes > the members of the institution very personal grief. > > The sad thing is that the soul involved doesn't always realize > this. And regardless of the actual feelings of the assembly > members, treats them as if they were indeed, a persecuting > force. One young man an assembly I sat on counseled had a > drug problem for which he refused to get help. He viewed > the mere fact that the assembly called him for consultation > as an act of personal persecution. He thought the people on > the assembly were "out to get him," when in fact, every one > of them loved him, valued him and wanted him to be well both > spiritually and physically. After one meeting in which we had > attempted to talk to him, several members of the assembly burst > into tears. > Anything in the name of love? Nine amateur spiritual psychologists are just going to talk someone straight? I've seen it attempted too with similar results.... > > > > Reasonable. Many in the Faith thinks this way. I do too in some regards. > > But then we're no longer in a world of ideal beauty.... > > But Baha'u'llah is clear that His teachings and the power > released by His revelation have the capacity to light that > spark He says lies latent within us. I've seen what that > spark can accomplish in the lives of ordinary human beings. > We have within our grasp the means of bringing that world > of ideal beauty out of the realm of spirit and onto this > earth. The scriptures of God's faith in every age proclaim > this unequivocally. > And have always failed.... By there own self-definitions, failed. Why? What is it about human nature? Do you actually believe the Baha'i Faith will do any better? I don't. I don't believe the deepest suggestions of the writings suggest any such thing. > > My post, I believe, was about the individual capacity to sully anything > > and everything in "this world of gloom." > > May I call you Eeyore? :) (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) > I tried to post a reply to on the newsgroup. I used the same phrase in the copy I mailed you: "utterly naive" Richard Detweiler has banned my post because it might hurt your feelings--not my intention. A good example of the self-righteous Fascism build the new world order inspires in Baha'i fanatics.... Calling me Eeyore doesn't hurt my feelings. I have, unlike fanatics, a sense of humor and relish the variety of human temperaments God has so blessed the world with. Yours is not mine, that is all. Do the Faith a favor, write the CENSOR and tell him to respect the human conscience of others, not only mine. > In the Kitab-i-Iqan, Baha'u'llah says that when we truly > accept Him, recognize Him, the Holy Spirit will confer > upon us "a new ear, a new eye, a new heart and a new mind." > We are capable of being transformed, and the Word of God > (and only the Word of God ) is capable of causing that > transformation. > Beautiful metaphors. Understand? > I am deeply sorry that your experience within the > Baha'i community has been so negative. The lack of complexity is what concerns me, and the lack of acknowledgement of proportion. But every > negative experience in life offers us more than one > way to react. I've often marveled how adversity can > make one person opt for a life of misery and > recrimination (it was mother's fault, it was God's > fault, it was...) and another come to the decision that > they will simply NOT let that adversity steal their > joy, or their life. > > I know there are Baha'i communities that are ruled > by a small clique of set in stone believers, or > groups where a number of petty-minded souls seem > to have things in control. Indeed, I have a friend > who lived in such a community until a new Baha'i > family moved in and changed the dynamics of the > situation. My friend chose to deal with the problem > by withdrawing. The new friends set about and > accomplished the renewal of that community by > opening their house to firesides, getting the > assembly to meet, teaching the faith, and most > important, showering everyone in their community, > including those set in stone souls with love. They > gave the community the medicine Baha'u'llah > prescribed and saved the patient. > The usual answer. Lacking complexity. > You may argue against the idea that hatred ceases > only through love, but this is a prescription from > a Physician who knows far more about the ills of > human kind than either you or I. > It has never truly healed the patient. Baha'u'llah, unlike Baha'is, understand the condition is terminal.... > Mir, Maya > +----------------------------------------+ > | Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syntax@oro.net | > +----------------------------------------+ > | "The beginning of all things is the | > | knowledge of God." - Baha'u'llah | > +----------------------------------------+ -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:32 1996 Received: from garfield.cs.mun.ca (134.153.1.1) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:49:13 -0500 Received: from ganymede.cs.mun.ca (afurlong@ganymede.cs.mun.ca [134.153.39.1]) by garfield.cs.mun.ca (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17448 for <@moa.net>; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:24:21 -0330 (NST) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:24:20 -0330 (NST) From: Anne Furlong To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community In-Reply-To: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Frederick, I received your note yesterday, and while I'm interested in pursuing the points you've raised, I am rather startled by your tone. It's true that I missed the opening posts that initiated this thread, and so might well have responded "off the mark", I think it's also true that in discourse of any kind, personal remarks can't add to the discussion. After all, 'Abdu'l-Baha says that the shining spark of truth results from the clash of differing opinions - not personalities! As well, I am, frankly, in the dark about your meaning in several places. Perhaps it would help to read the response I wrote to the note you sent me. I won't post it, but let you decide how you'd like to proceed. There are a few points I'd like to respond to. They are based on my understanding of the Writings, my experience as a member of several communities, and my experience serving on several Assemblies. [snip] > > The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > > whatsoever. > > "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... I really do think that for a Baha'i, it is not naive to stand by the implications, interpretations and applications of the Writings of Baha'u'llah, the Master and the Guardian. I have tried to make clear my understanding of the Writings, and if this understanding is flawed, I would like to find passages which correct my understanding. To call my take on things "naive" doesn't seem to advance the discussion very much. > > [clip] > > > > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. I'm not sure what you mean here, and it would help me if you could clarify. Do you mean that the Institutions of the Faith OUGHT to ban "abuse and manipulation", the use of "power" to "undermine" the ability to resist tyranny? or do you mean that the Institutions of the Faith DO ban such behaviour, and therefore "muzzle" freedom of speech? I am not trying to provoke; for me the sentence really is ambiguous. In either case, I'd refer you to the Statement of the Universal House of Justice, specifically directed to the Community of the Baha'is of the United States, but relevant to all: "Individual Rights and Freedoms in the World Order of Baha'u'llah". I think it may address some, if not all, of your concerns. > > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, > > In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. Are you conflating the immaturity of individual believers, communities, or institutions with the Covenant? As relative beings, we are constantly striving towards that glorious Absolute. As imperfect beings, we are constantly dealing with failures of various kinds. My reference to "love", below, is shorthand, I guess, for the sovereign remedy to estrangement and disillusionment: as 'Abdu'l-Baha says, we must love the creatures for the sake of God, and not for themselves. (I'll find and post the full quotation). [snip] > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". > > What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're > too quick to leap over that fact for me. Again, I am not sure what you mean: that there are institutional limits to the freedom of the individual to exercise power? yes, of course; and reading the Statement I mentioned will explain those limits far better than I ever could. If you are saying that situations arise in which people fall away from the high standards set by the Faith, well, that's true too. But they're irrelevant, to me, as an indication that this is the ways things should, will, must be: to me, they are indications that the standards ARE high. My own experience tells me that the standards are, within our means, achievable. > We are > > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > > reason for our failure to love? > > > > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. I hope I clarified matters a little in the preceding passage. > > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > > > > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, > turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community > or individuals under that Tyranny? Again, do you mean that the Administrative Order itself is "Tyranny"? that there continue to exist tyrannous situations and persons within the Administrative order? that the Administrative Order is incapable of dealing with these situations and individuals? With the first I would respectfully disagree, and base my disagreement on my belief in the Station of Baha'u'llah. With the second, I would agree, with the proviso that, as I mentioned in the original posting, the Covenant itself is the best protection: not as an elixir, but as the "pivot" round which the oneness of humanity must turn - and upon which, as a result, justice itself is founded. I would also say that an individual's, community's, or institution's protection is directly related to the degree of faithfulness to the Covenant. With the final, I would also disagree, and urge a study of the Writings and commentaries on the nature and purpose of the Administrative order. And now I have to run, but I'm grateful for your response, and hope that we can continue to explore this topic on the newsgroup. All the best, Anne Furlong St John's, Newfoundland Canada From - Wed Nov 20 10:10:58 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:46:37 -0500 Message-ID: <32930D52.2FC8@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:53:22 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611191434.HAA23362@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the > moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, > it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to > the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. > > If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest > news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first > is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. This newsgroup, > however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere > of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > I'm not at all surprised Richardt.... Fascists and totalitarians have always sought to conceal and manipulate reality. > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 68 > > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Sian Smith > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > >> > > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > > another person). > > > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > > reads.... It that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > > is it? > > > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > > Let's not make waves.... Let's build UNITY! > > > > > Loving greetings > > > > > > Sian Smith > > > Wellington > > > New Zealand > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:20 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:29:07 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id HAA10366; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:34:11 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id HAA23362; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:34:11 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611191434.HAA23362@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:34:10 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 19, 96 05:44:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. This newsgroup, however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 68 > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > To: Sian Smith > CC: @MOA.net > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > >> > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > >> > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > another person). > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > reads.... It that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > is it? > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > > > Loving greetings > > > > Sian Smith > > Wellington > > New Zealand > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== From - Wed Nov 20 08:07:24 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:38:03 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id HAA10563; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:43:08 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id HAA24131; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:43:08 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611191443.HAA24131@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:43:07 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 19, 96 06:10:21 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I ask that you strike the comment "utterly naive" as an attack on the previous poster. If you would like to say you disagree, that would be acceptable. Also, your sarcastic comments in the following paragraph: > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. If you would turn this into a meaningful criticism based on actual events than the readership could evaluate and enter into a dialog with you on these events. Again, let me make it clear that if you have a grievance with the Faith, you are free to air it here, but it must be the facts and your reasons for the grievance presented and not belittling insults, broad stereotypes, and blatant sarcasm. Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@moa.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:21 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 78 > Message-ID: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > To: Anne Furlong > CC: @moa.net > > Anne Furlong wrote: > > > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > > whatsoever. > > "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... > > [clip] > > > > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > > > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, > > In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. > > then the > > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". > > What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're > too quick to leap over that fact for me. > > We are > > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > > reason for our failure to love? > > > > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > > > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > > > > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, > turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community > or individuals under that Tyranny? > > > All the best, > > > > Anne Furlong > > St John's Newfoundland Canada > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:39 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.66) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:05:21 -0500 Message-ID: <32931FC9.4444@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:12:09 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jsgreen@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0000 subscribe talisman Frederick Glaysher From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:41 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.66) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:08:12 -0500 Message-ID: <32932074.2376@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:15:00 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Furlong CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Anne Furlong wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > I received your note yesterday, and while I'm interested in pursuing the > points you've raised, I am rather startled by your tone. > > It's true that I missed the opening posts that initiated this thread, and > so might well have responded "off the mark", I think it's also true that > in discourse of any kind, personal remarks can't add to the discussion. > > After all, 'Abdu'l-Baha says that the shining spark of truth results from > the clash of differing opinions - not personalities! > > As well, I am, frankly, in the dark about your meaning in several places. > > Perhaps it would help to read the response I wrote to the note you sent > me. I won't post it, but let you decide how you'd like to proceed. > > There are a few points I'd like to respond to. They are based on my > understanding of the Writings, my experience as a member of several > communities, and my experience serving on several Assemblies. > > [snip] > > > The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > > > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > > > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > > > whatsoever. > > > > "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... > > I really do think that for a Baha'i, it is not naive to stand by the > implications, interpretations and applications of the Writings of > Baha'u'llah, the Master and the Guardian. I have tried to make clear my > understanding of the Writings, and if this understanding is flawed, I > would like to find passages which correct my understanding. To call my > take on things "naive" doesn't seem to advance the discussion very much. > > Anne Furlong > St John's, Newfoundland Canada Sorry to hurt your feelings, Anne. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:43 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.66) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:20:19 -0500 Message-ID: <32932348.5E7E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:27:04 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611191434.HAA23362@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the > moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, > it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to > the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. > False. They go to the heart of the matter, i.e., how it functions. > If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest > news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first > is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. "Vent your frustrations" is in the same category as my "Utterly naive." I don't seek to deprive you of your conscience that apparently believes that. You may say what you wish. It won't hurt my little feelings. I believe you're again manipulating discussion in a dictatorial, oppressive manner unjustified by anything in the Baha'i Writings which you apparently cloak your shameless deeds in. This newsgroup, > however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere > of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. > The abuse of the conscience of a member of the Baha'i Faith and, apparently regular practice of distortion and censorship is not a suitable topic? I can understand why you wouldn't wish to have anyone else know.... > Thank you for participating, > I'm not participating at all. You are self-righteous depriving me of that. You are also depriving others of hearing or disagreeing with my opinions. > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 68 > > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Sian Smith > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > >> > > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > > another person). > > > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > > reads.... If that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > > is it? > > > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > > Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > > > > > Loving greetings > > > > > > Sian Smith > > > Wellington > > > New Zealand > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > = End submitted post =========================== YOU DEAR CENSORS have shown your true colors once again. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:47 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.66) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:25:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3293247F.2340@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:32:15 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611191443.HAA24131@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Further response-- Your characterization of my comments as sarcastic is ludicrous. One may not be sarcastic in the Baha'i Faith? And you are too determine is toooooo SARCASTIC? Oh God, what a farce! Since you apparently don't understand the passage in question, I'm supposed to water in down for YOUR ignorance! I'm talking about the totalitarianism of the SOVIET UNION which you dangerously come close to. Again, I request that you post my message or pass it on to someone else who is not as fanatical as you. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > I ask that you strike the comment "utterly naive" as an attack > on the previous poster. If you would like to say you disagree, > that would be acceptable. > > Also, your sarcastic comments in the following paragraph: > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > > If you would turn this into a meaningful criticism based on actual events > than the readership could evaluate and enter into a dialog with you on these > events. > > Again, let me make it clear that if you have a grievance with the Faith, > you are free to air it here, but it must be the facts and your reasons for > the grievance presented and not belittling insults, broad stereotypes, and > blatant sarcasm. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:21 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 78 > > Message-ID: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Anne Furlong > > CC: @moa.net > > > > Anne Furlong wrote: > > > > > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > > > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > > > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > > > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > > > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > > > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > > > whatsoever. > > > > "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... > > > > [clip] > > > > > > > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > > > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > > > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > > > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > > > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > > > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > > > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > > > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > > > > > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > > > > > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > > > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, > > > > In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. > > > > then the > > > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > > > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > > > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > > > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > > > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > > > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > > > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > > > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > > > > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > > > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > > > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > > > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". > > > > What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're > > too quick to leap over that fact for me. > > > > We are > > > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > > > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > > > reason for our failure to love? > > > > > > > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > > > > > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > > > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > > > > > > > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, > > turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community > > or individuals under that Tyranny? > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Anne Furlong > > > St John's Newfoundland Canada > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:51 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:44:21 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id JAA23456; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:44:28 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id JAA14736; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:44:27 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611201644.JAA14736@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:44:26 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3293247F.2340@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 20, 96 10:32:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Frederick Glaysher writes: > > Further response-- Your characterization of my comments as sarcastic > is ludicrous. One may not be sarcastic in the Baha'i Faith? And you > are too determine is toooooo SARCASTIC? Oh God, what a farce! > > Since you apparently don't understand the passage in question, I'm > supposed to water in down for YOUR ignorance! I'm talking about the > totalitarianism of the SOVIET UNION which you dangerously come close > to. > > Again, I request that you post my message or pass it on to someone > else who is not as fanatical as you. > Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct some misunderstandings you have about the newsgroup soc.religion.bahai. It appears you have the impression that the newsgroup has some kind of official standing within the Baha'i Faith and that the moderators are somehow part of the Baha'i Administration. This is not the case. While the moderators try to use Baha'i principles of consultation and at times request guidence from Institutions of the Faith, we are not in any way connected with the Administrative Order. We are simply volunteers who try to apply the charter of the newsgroup to the submissions that come before us. The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement alone that I have rejected some of your posts. In doing so, I am making no judgement as to your fitness or standing as a Baha'i. Let me stress again, the moderators stand ready to post your views to the newsgroup no matter what they are as long as they meet these simple criteria: - they address aspects of the Baha'i Faith - they are respectful in tone - they are not personal attacks - they are not ads or solicitations Your posts have at times fallen short in the 2nd and 3rd category. Each time I have suggested how you can get your views heard on the newsgroup. It is completely up to you whether you want to cooperate and live by these rules. If you insist on a right to belittle and be disrespectful with those you engage in discussion, I will fully support your right to do so either by e-mail, on another newsgroup, by phone, mail, or in person. But if you want to participate in this newsgroup, you will have to abide by the charter and the moderators. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai From - Wed Nov 20 13:58:02 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:48:43 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id NAA24767; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:46:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id NAA24711; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:46:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from drew.berry.edu by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id NAA24614; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from odin.berry.edu (odin.berry.edu [168.31.232.26]) by drew.berry.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA22431; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:42:03 -0500 Received: from ODIN/SpoolDir by odin.berry.edu (Mercury 1.21); 20 Nov 96 13:57:03 -400 Received: from SpoolDir by ODIN (Mercury 1.30); 20 Nov 96 13:57:02 -400 From: "Susan Maneck" Organization: Berry College To: banani@ucla.edu (Amin Banani) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:57:00 EST Subject: Re: Membership Update Reply-to: SManeck@berry.edu CC: talisman@umich.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <3A087960EC2@odin.berry.edu> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Sheila, You and Jackson were both good guessers. love, Susan > Burl wrote: > > >56,458 is what I got for *adult Baha'is eligible to vote with confirmed > >>addresses*. > > Ah, at last. Thanks, Burl, for calling Membership & Records. love, Sheila > > Sheila Banani > 2320 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90402 > Tel (310) 394-5449 > Fax (310) 394-6167 > E-Mail: Banani@UCLA.Edu (Sheila) > > > From - Thu Nov 21 07:49:44 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:01:31 -0500 Message-ID: <32935722.7DC@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:08:18 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611201644.JAA14736@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher writes: > > > > Further response-- Your characterization of my comments as sarcastic > > is ludicrous. One may not be sarcastic in the Baha'i Faith? And you > > are too determine is toooooo SARCASTIC? Oh God, what a farce! > > > > Since you apparently don't understand the passage in question, I'm > > supposed to water in down for YOUR ignorance! I'm talking about the > > totalitarianism of the SOVIET UNION which you dangerously come close > > to. > > > > Again, I request that you post my message or pass it on to someone > > else who is not as fanatical as you. > > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct some misunderstandings > you have about the newsgroup soc.religion.bahai. It appears you have > the impression that the newsgroup has some kind of official standing > within the Baha'i Faith and that the moderators are somehow part of > the Baha'i Administration. This is not the case. While the moderators > try to use Baha'i principles of consultation and at times request > guidence from Institutions of the Faith, we are not in any way connected > with the Administrative Order. We are simply volunteers who try to > apply the charter of the newsgroup to the submissions that come before > us. > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the second passage in the post in question. Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. In doing so, I am making > no judgement as to your fitness or standing as a Baha'i. > > Let me stress again, the moderators stand ready to post your views > to the newsgroup no matter what they are as long as they meet these > simple criteria: > > - they address aspects of the Baha'i Faith > - they are respectful in tone > - they are not personal attacks > - they are not ads or solicitations > > Your posts have at times fallen short in the 2nd and 3rd category. Each > time I have suggested how you can get your views heard on the newsgroup. > It is completely up to you whether you want to cooperate and live by these > rules. If you insist on a right to belittle and be disrespectful with those > you engage in discussion, I will fully support your right to do so either > by e-mail, on another newsgroup, by phone, mail, or in person. But if you > want to participate in this newsgroup, you will have to abide by the charter > and the moderators. > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Nov 21 07:49:51 1996 Received: from dagora.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.23) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:15:30 -0500 Received: from [141.211.88.30] by dagora.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) id QAA17973; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:20:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:20:41 -0500 To: @MOA.net From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette Subject: Modeling Consultation X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 I read some of your postings on soc.religion.bahai, and would like to say "Hello!". Are you the same person who edited Robert Hayden's _Collected Poems_ ? I haven't read the work, although now I will do so, but it was my wife who recently reorganized and cataloged the library at the Hayden House in Ann Arbor. Cheryll says that there are numerous manuscripts which neither she nor the daughter know how to handle, piled in the basement, and wonders if you have any suggestions. She has been a Baha'i for 30 years in California, while I spent most of those years at Cornell University in a variety of positions, including Director of Institutional Planning and Analysis, and teaching database and computer courses for the MBA's at the Johnson Graduate School of Management. I am organizing an on-line group to explore what insight can be gained by developing computer models of the Baha'i consultation process, done with concern as to both theological validity and computer systems validity. I'm not talking about simplistic models, but attempting to apply current technology of multiple-agent adaptive evolutionary systems to this task. Historically, I've found it quite useful to use such an approach to force people to come to grips with defining vague terms they have been using for years, to attempt to separate wheat from chaff, to find the underlying functionality which the superficial structures embody. Well, it's been useful to me, in any case. >From your postings I see a person deeply committed to the Baha'i Faith and an unmet desire to focus attention on communication structures and processes which have potential instabilities that suggest a need for analysis and, perhaps, re-engineering from basic principles. Please let me know if you might be interested in participating in such a discussion. Best regards, Wade Schuette Ann Arbor, MI Cheryll & Wade Schuette R. Wade Schuette 2345 Stone Rd. University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0752 (313) 763-8278 (home) (313) 763-6115 (work) From - Thu Nov 21 08:44:02 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.46) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:04:54 -0500 Message-ID: <3294550C.3C35@moa.net> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:11:40 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cheryll & Wade Schuette CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Modeling Consultation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Cheryll & Wade Schuette wrote: > > Are you the same person who edited Robert Hayden's _Collected Poems_ ? > I haven't read the work, although now I will do so, but it was my wife > who recently reorganized and cataloged the library at the Hayden House > in Ann Arbor. Cheryll says that there are numerous manuscripts which > neither she nor the daughter know how to handle, piled in the basement, > and wonders if you have any suggestions. > Yes, I am. I'd suggest contacting the University of Michigan's special collections librarians. Ask them if they're interested in acquiring any of the manuscripts. They were at one time. Mrs. Hayden had considered making a bequest of the bulk of her husband's papers there but then decided on the Baha'i Archives. I helped box most of his papers and took them to Wilmette. I'm surprised to hear there are "numerous manuscripts." A few, yes. > > >From your postings I see a person deeply committed to the Baha'i Faith > and an unmet desire to focus attention on communication structures and > processes which have potential instabilities that suggest a need for > analysis and, perhaps, re-engineering from basic principles. > More objective then I could muster but basically perhaps true. I don't believe we can re-engineer the human heart.... > Please let me know if you might be interested in participating in such > a discussion. > I'm not a technician. I'd don't know if I'd have anything significant to add give your approach. If you're open to someone from the humanities, sure. > Best regards, > Wade Schuette > Ann Arbor, MI -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Nov 21 08:44:03 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:36:22 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA29545; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:41:43 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-14.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:43:04 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 20 Message-ID: <32945C68.3378@moa.net> References: <56tfo6$cgg@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <56vdgi$eth@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling through this morass.... The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the power to change the world.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:54 1996 Received: from ems1.uwsp.edu (143.236.1.18) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:32:50 -0500 Received: by ems1.uwsp.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBD6D7.48DC9930@ems1.uwsp.edu>; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:38:01 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Rowe, Thomas" To: 'Frederick Glaysher' <@MOA.net> Cc: "'bahai-faith@bcca.org'" Subject: RE: Power in the Baha'i community Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:37:58 -0600 Return-Receipt-To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 I find it very interesting how Mr. Glaysher and I can have such disparate views on this topic. Question: Are you a Baha'i and have you experienced these power plays first hand, or are you relying on some other analysis? I said: > >> Reward power. Neither institutions nor individuals hold any reward >> power. >> You replied: >False. Institutions and individuals have reward power, officially and >unofficially. Would you like to explain that? What reward can they hand out to me officially? What is the form of an unofficial reward? >> Punative. No individual holds such power. The institutions hold only >> the power to withdraw administrative rights (see legitimate, below). >> Beyond that, they don't have any punative power. >> > >False. Both have punitive power legitimately and socially. Again I ask: Please provide examples of what you mean. > >> Expert. This is entirely up to the individual. No doubt, for many of >> us, some prominent Baha'is, especially those appointed to the >> "intelligensia" of the Faith - the Continental Board of Counsellors and >> the Auxilliary Board Members - hold a measure of this. However, we are >> also warned that true spiritual knowledge can be found in many places, >> including the unlettered, and that often the well learned do not know >> the answers. >> > >Indeed, they do.... As a functional clergy of sorts, call them what you >like, >they can wield power over others.... Power of various types. Well, functional clergy would not be my choice of terms. Their only function is to advise and you can choose to take their advice or not. There is no penalty for not taking their advice. Expert power depends on my perception they know things I don't. If I don't believe they do, then they hold no expert power. > >> Legitimate. By virtue of joining the Faith I accede to the >> adminstrative bodies (specifically the National Spiritual Assembly of >> the U.S. and the Universal House of Justice) the power to determine my >> status within the community. They hold no other power over me. >> > >It takes my breath away.... I believe the individual has the volitional >power in this regard. Or, alas, this passage suggests the opposite of >what you seem to think it does.... And what is the opposite of what I think? If I join the military I swear an oath to obey orders. Failure to do so can result in some pretty severe consequences. By officially joining the Baha'i Faith I acknowledge the station of Baha'u'llah and that He has revealed laws which I must follow. However, unlike the military, if I fail to obey nobody puts me in jail. As a practical matter, none of us manages to follow all those laws and exhortations and only when the reputation of the Faith appears to be in jeapordy of damage would I be approached by any institution of the Faith about my conduct. In terms of the rest of the world, this is a pretty "wimpy" use of power. > >> Referent. This is a subtle but powerful force. My desire to be able to >> live the life that certain others live is a powerful influence. And if >> one of them suggested some action to me, it would carry a lot of weight. >> But not even the most revered Baha'i could _force_ me to act in a >> specific way. And I can't imagine a person whom I would label "revered" >> trying to. >> > >Read more history and use your imagination a little more.... Don't have to. Been a Baha'i long enough and known enough of those "revered" people to know better. Perhaps you have a specific instance in mind from your own experience? Or are you generalizing? > >> Result: Unlike secular governments which can jail you for bad behavior, >> there really are no mechanisms in the Baha'i Faith to exert coercive >> social power. Whatever power is there occurs because the individuals >> allow themselves to be influenced. >> > >Utterly false. "Coercive social power" is a reality in ever form of >organization By coercive I meant to imply ability to force. It is true that social power is a reality in every organization, but not all organizations are alike. When my ability to pursue a livlihood is dependent on good standing with the Church, such as often the case hundreds of years ago in Europe, then that church's ability to excommunicate me carries a lot of weight. In that sense, the church or individuals with that power within it have considerable coercive power. I can get into all kinds of trouble by stating the earth revolves around the sun, e.g. But when membership is independent of my ability to pursue a livlihood, etc., then there sure isn't very much "coercive" social power and I go back to what I was trying to state that whatever power there is inherent in the Baha'i community revolves around expert and referent power, neither of which carries much coercive potential > Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >\ > He is a true Baha'i who strives, by day and by night > to progress and advance along the path of human > endeavor. > Abdu'l-Baha > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/bahai.htm (Pictures) > > From - Wed Nov 20 13:57:58 1996 Received: from li.oro.net (198.68.62.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:03:53 -0500 Received: from oro.net (root@Au.oro.net [198.68.62.42]) by li.oro.net (8.7.4/8.8.96-smj) with ESMTP id KAA05489 for <@moa.net>; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:09:02 -0800 Received: from red-oktobr (syntax.oro.net [204.119.228.84]) by oro.net (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21465 for <@moa.net>; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:08:59 -0800 Message-ID: <3293482D.49B5@oro.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:04:29 -0800 From: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff Organization: SFWA X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> <328C806E.295C@moa.net> <32908412.2C44@oro.net> <3291A53E.78A1@moa.net> <3291CC64.9F@oro.net> <329314FD.2259@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > To my mind, after twenty years in the Baha'i Faith, the "unity" is > a fraud, doesn't exist.... My twenty years says that it does. How do we reconcile our experiences? Can it be boiled down to a point of view? I believe strongly in the power of the Holy Spirit and of the Words of Baha'u'llah and of the Faith as an entity, to pull our collective and individual chestnuts out of the fire. I've seen so often that Baha'u'llah's exhortations on how to handle disunity are absolutely right that I find it hard to believe you have tried them yourself and found them wanting. > If these are the "mechanisms," they're insufficient. No, but our understanding of them certainly is. The flaw is ours, not the mechanism. Besides which, everything you say indicates that you have put the spirit of the FAith and its administration in two separate boxes. They aren't meant to function that way. What makes those "mechanisms" work is the spirit underlying and pervading them. As Shoghi Effendi says, to separate the spritiual from the administrative is tantamount to a mutilation of the Cause. > Antinomy is presupposed. There is tragedy in Baha'u'llah's > writings, tragedy minds like yours (I mean no insult), typically > fail to understand. Minds like mine? Do you presume to know it? Perhaps Borges is right -- some of us do not understand tragedy, but only live it. What there is in Baha'u'llah's writings is sanity, reason, passion, spirit and the Voice of God. I have absolute faith in that. > > Even the Dali Lama has had second thoughts.... Much too late. Perhaps that is why he visited the Shrine of Baha'u'llah and consulted with the House of Justice. > > Anything in the name of love? Nine amateur spiritual psychologists > are just going to talk someone straight? I've seen it attempted > too with similar results.... Now, you're being intentionally obtuse. The assembly was trying get this friend to get professional help. All the asssembly can do beside that is to speak to the issues of Baha'i spirit and Baha'i law. Our desire was to put the physical/mental problems where they belonged, in the hands of competent physicians. > > And have always failed.... By there own self-definitions, failed. > Why? What is it about human nature? Do you actually believe the > Baha'i Faith will do any better? I don't. I don't believe the > deepest suggestions of the writings suggest any such thing. Is it human nature or your own that makes you so angry and miserable? > > I tried to post a reply to on the newsgroup. I used the same phrase > in the copy I mailed you: "utterly naive" Richard Detweiler has > banned my post because it might hurt your feelings--not my intention. I'm certainly not concerned about my feelings, but rather your own. Richard, naive? Perhaps. But so, I think, are you. Naivete and idealism, I've found, is often the flip-side of cynicism. > A good example of the self-righteous Fascism build the new world order > inspires in Baha'i fanatics.... Self-righteous? To wish to keep from hurting the feelings of others? Well, that's a new twist. > Calling me Eeyore doesn't hurt my feelings. Good, because it really suits you. > I have, unlike fanatics, a sense of humor and relish the variety of human > temperaments God has so blessed the world with. A sense of humor? Eeyore, you hide it so well! > Do the Faith a favor, write the CENSOR and tell him to respect the human > conscience of others, not only mine. I shall ask Richard to allow your posts. I don't think they'd hurt anyone's feelings, but again, I'm not sure they'd be conducive to creating anything positive. I have a rather peculiar mentality in some ways: combine Dorothy of Kansas with Crusader Rabbit and you might capture it. > Beautiful metaphors. Understand? Yes, I do understand. As Ray Bradbury as said, "Metaphor is the medicine." They are mirrors of Reality. Not this punk surface crap we deal with daily, but Reality. > > The lack of complexity is what concerns me, and the lack of > acknowledgement of proportion. I have observed no such lack in geneneral, though I've certainly seen it manifested by individuals. > > The usual answer. Lacking complexity. Bullshit. An e-mail is not the place for a complex answer. And to judge the possibilities for response by a paragraph written on the spur of the moment is ludicrous. You see what you want to see; hear what you are prepared to hear. > > > It has never truly healed the patient. Baha'u'llah, unlike > Baha'is, understand the condition is terminal.... Nonsense. I need no other testimony than my own life experience to know the utter falsity of that assertion. Baha'u'llah's words clearly indicate that the patient will indeed recover. As Isaiah wrote: "The zeal of the LOrd of Hosts will perform this." +----------------------------------------+ | Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syntax@oro.net | +----------------------------------------+ | "The beginning of all things is the | | knowledge of God." - Baha'u'llah | +----------------------------------------+ From - Thu Nov 21 07:49:56 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:09:42 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id PAA05783; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:14:44 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id PAA26784; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:14:44 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:14:43 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32935722.7DC@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 20, 96 02:08:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > second passage in the post in question. > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. But I hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. That way, the respectful tone is maintained. Remember that the readership includes people from all backgrounds and cultures. I have been surprised many times when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. I try to make sure the chance of this is kept to a minimum. And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and unfettered consultation. I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai From - Fri Nov 22 07:58:48 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:29:14 -0500 Message-ID: <329468CE.6E8@moa.net> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:35:58 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rowe, Thomas" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Power in the Baha'i community References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Rowe, Thomas wrote: > > I find it very interesting how Mr. Glaysher and I can have such > disparate views on this topic. Question: Are you a Baha'i and have you > experienced these power plays first hand, or are you relying on some > other analysis? > I find it interesting too. I've been a member of the Baha'i Faith for twenty years. How about you? "Power plays" is your characterization, not mine.... But I've kept my eyes open. > I said: > > > >> Reward power. Neither institutions nor individuals hold any reward > >> power. > >> > > You replied: > > >False. Institutions and individuals have reward power, officially and > >unofficially. > > Would you like to explain that? What reward can they hand out to me > officially? What is the form of an unofficial reward? > > >> Punative. No individual holds such power. The institutions hold only > >> the power to withdraw administrative rights (see legitimate, below). > >> Beyond that, they don't have any punative power. > >> > > > >False. Both have punitive power legitimately and socially. > > Again I ask: Please provide examples of what you mean. > > > >> Expert. This is entirely up to the individual. No doubt, for many of > >> us, some prominent Baha'is, especially those appointed to the > >> "intelligensia" of the Faith - the Continental Board of Counsellors and > >> the Auxilliary Board Members - hold a measure of this. However, we are > >> also warned that true spiritual knowledge can be found in many places, > >> including the unlettered, and that often the well learned do not know > >> the answers. > >> > > > >Indeed, they do.... As a functional clergy of sorts, call them what you > >like, > >they can wield power over others.... Power of various types. > > Well, functional clergy would not be my choice of terms. Their only > function is to advise and you can choose to take their advice or not. > There is no penalty for not taking their advice. False, again. There are penalties, such as ostracism. Expert power depends > on my perception they know things I don't. If I don't believe they do, > then they hold no expert power. > Or are you blind to the power they do hold? > > >> Legitimate. By virtue of joining the Faith I accede to the > >> adminstrative bodies (specifically the National Spiritual Assembly of > >> the U.S. and the Universal House of Justice) the power to determine my > >> status within the community. They hold no other power over me. > >> > > > >It takes my breath away.... I believe the individual has the volitional > >power in this regard. Or, alas, this passage suggests the opposite of > >what you seem to think it does.... > > And what is the opposite of what I think? If I join the military I > swear an oath to obey orders. Failure to do so can result in some > pretty severe consequences. By officially joining the Baha'i Faith I > acknowledge the station of Baha'u'llah and that He has revealed laws > which I must follow. However, unlike the military, if I fail to obey > nobody puts me in jail. As a practical matter, none of us manages to > follow all those laws and exhortations and only when the reputation of > the Faith appears to be in jeapordy of damage would I be approached by > any institution of the Faith about my conduct. In terms of the rest of > the world, this is a pretty "wimpy" use of power. > Perhaps functionally equivalent to jail. > > >> Referent. This is a subtle but powerful force. My desire to be able to > >> live the life that certain others live is a powerful influence. And if > >> one of them suggested some action to me, it would carry a lot of weight. > >> But not even the most revered Baha'i could _force_ me to act in a > >> specific way. And I can't imagine a person whom I would label "revered" > >> trying to. > >> > > > >Read more history and use your imagination a little more.... > > Don't have to. Been a Baha'i long enough and known enough of those > "revered" people to know better. Perhaps you have a specific instance > in mind from your own experience? Or are you generalizing? > You're not? > > >> Result: Unlike secular governments which can jail you for bad behavior, > >> there really are no mechanisms in the Baha'i Faith to exert coercive > >> social power. Whatever power is there occurs because the individuals > >> allow themselves to be influenced. > >> > > > >Utterly false. "Coercive social power" is a reality in ever form of > >organization > > By coercive I meant to imply ability to force. It is true that social > power is a reality in every organization, but not all organizations are > alike. When my ability to pursue a livlihood is dependent on good > standing with the Church, such as often the case hundreds of years ago > in Europe, then that church's ability to excommunicate me carries a lot > of weight. In that sense, the church or individuals with that power > within it have considerable coercive power. I can get into all kinds of > trouble by stating the earth revolves around the sun, e.g. But when > membership is independent of my ability to pursue a livlihood, etc., > then there sure isn't very much "coercive" social power and I go back to > what I was trying to state that whatever power there is inherent in the > Baha'i community revolves around expert and referent power, neither of > which carries much coercive potential > In my opinion, you're missing a lot. > > Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > >\ > > He is a true Baha'i who strives, by day and by night > > to progress and advance along the path of human > > endeavor. > > Abdu'l-Baha > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/bahai.htm (Pictures) > > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Fri Nov 22 07:58:52 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:48:56 -0500 Message-ID: <32946D6C.2143@moa.net> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:55:40 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"BYWGWC.A.PdB.pm0iy"@bounty> <328C806E.295C@moa.net> <32908412.2C44@oro.net> <3291A53E.78A1@moa.net> <3291CC64.9F@oro.net> <329314FD.2259@moa.net> <3293482D.49B5@oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > To my mind, after twenty years in the Baha'i Faith, the "unity" is > > a fraud, doesn't exist.... > > My twenty years says that it does. How do we reconcile our > experiences? I'm not sure we can. Can it be boiled down to a point of view? Much does, in this world.... I > believe strongly in the power of the Holy Spirit and of the > Words of Baha'u'llah and of the Faith as an entity, to > pull our collective and individual chestnuts out of the > fire. I've seen so often that Baha'u'llah's exhortations on > how to handle disunity are absolutely right that I find it > hard to believe you have tried them yourself and found them > wanting. > Often seems to me to be uniformity, not unity in diversity; hence, a fraud.... > > If these are the "mechanisms," they're insufficient. > > No, but our understanding of them certainly is. The flaw > is ours, not the mechanism. A possibility. But I not sure. Besides which, everything > you say indicates that you have put the spirit of the FAith > and its administration in two separate boxes. They aren't > meant to function that way. What makes those "mechanisms" > work is the spirit underlying and pervading them. I don't consider these "mechanisms." As > Shoghi Effendi says, to separate the spritiual from > the administrative is tantamount to a mutilation of the > Cause. > > > Antinomy is presupposed. There is tragedy in Baha'u'llah's > > writings, tragedy minds like yours (I mean no insult), typically > > fail to understand. > > Minds like mine? Do you presume to know it? Perhaps Borges is > right -- some of us do not understand tragedy, but only live it. > We all live, though some ignore it.... > What there is in Baha'u'llah's writings is sanity, reason, > passion, spirit and the Voice of God. I have absolute faith in > that. > I don't doubt it. > > Even the Dali Lama has had second thoughts.... Much too late. > > Perhaps that is why he visited the Shrine of Baha'u'llah and > consulted with the House of Justice. > We don't know from an independent source what his thoughts are really.... > > > Anything in the name of love? Nine amateur spiritual psychologists > > are just going to talk someone straight? I've seen it attempted > > too with similar results.... > > Now, you're being intentionally obtuse. The assembly was trying > get this friend to get professional help. All the asssembly can > do beside that is to speak to the issues of Baha'i spirit and > Baha'i law. Our desire was to put the physical/mental problems > where they belonged, in the hands of competent physicians. > Sounds as though you exacerbated them. > > > And have always failed.... By there own self-definitions, failed. > > Why? What is it about human nature? Do you actually believe the > > Baha'i Faith will do any better? I don't. I don't believe the > > deepest suggestions of the writings suggest any such thing. > > Is it human nature or your own that makes you so angry and miserable? > I don't believe I'm either though I understand your need to think so. > > > I tried to post a reply to on the newsgroup. I used the same phrase > > in the copy I mailed you: "utterly naive" Richard Detweiler has > > banned my post because it might hurt your feelings--not my intention. > > I'm certainly not concerned about my feelings, but rather your own. > Richard, naive? Perhaps. But so, I think, are you. Naivete and idealism, > I've found, is often the flip-side of cynicism. > Not cynicism. That would be to acknowledge only the worst side of human nature. There is a high and lofty side, equally given by God. My point is the conflict is eternal.... That's all. A humbling recognition. > > A good example of the self-righteous Fascism build the new world order > > inspires in Baha'i fanatics.... > > Self-righteous? To wish to keep from hurting the feelings of others? > Well, that's a new twist. > > > Calling me Eeyore doesn't hurt my feelings. > > Good, because it really suits you. > I don't resent your expressing your conscience. I thank you for sharing it with me. Unfortunately, you have been robbed of the right to share it with others. How's it feel? Like "unity"? > > I have, unlike fanatics, a sense of humor and relish the variety of human > > temperaments God has so blessed the world with. > > A sense of humor? Eeyore, you hide it so well! > You're not listening carefully enough. Perhaps in your literal-mindedness you're missing something. Ever occur to you? No spite intended. > > Do the Faith a favor, write the CENSOR and tell him to respect the human > > conscience of others, not only mine. > > I shall ask Richard to allow your posts. I don't think they'd hurt > anyone's feelings, but again, I'm not sure they'd be conducive to > creating anything positive. Univocal, forced pabulum hasn't done the Faith much good over these last decades.... I have a rather peculiar mentality in > some ways: combine Dorothy of Kansas with Crusader Rabbit and you > might capture it. > Perhaps you'll permit me, with a touch of humor, to agree.... But I respect you for it. I mean that. There is goodness too in human nature. That you specialize in it is all right by me.... > > Beautiful metaphors. Understand? > > Yes, I do understand. As Ray Bradbury as said, "Metaphor is the > medicine." They are mirrors of Reality. Not this punk surface > crap we deal with daily, but Reality. > "Punk"? Not at all to my taste! > > > The lack of complexity is what concerns me, and the lack of > > acknowledgement of proportion. > > I have observed no such lack in geneneral, though I've > certainly seen it manifested by individuals. > Watch more closely. > > > The usual answer. Lacking complexity. > > Bullshit. Now, NOW! The CENSOR would not allow such a word. It would be good for others. And what of our HOLY image of UNITY! An e-mail is not the place for a complex > answer. And to judge the possibilities for response > by a paragraph written on the spur of the moment > is ludicrous. > > You see what you want to see; hear what you are > prepared to hear. > > > > > It has never truly healed the patient. Baha'u'llah, unlike > > Baha'is, understand the condition is terminal.... > > Nonsense. I need no other testimony than my own life > experience to know the utter falsity of that assertion. > > Baha'u'llah's words clearly indicate that the patient will > indeed recover. As Isaiah wrote: "The zeal of the LOrd of > Hosts will perform this." > Read Ecclesiastes. The entire Book, please: "The heart of the sons of men is full of evil." It shan't surprise you that it's my favorite Book of the Bible next to Job. It's quite a world God's created. > +----------------------------------------+ > | Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syntax@oro.net | > +----------------------------------------+ > | "The beginning of all things is the | > | knowledge of God." - Baha'u'llah | > +----------------------------------------+ -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Fri Nov 22 07:58:58 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:00:43 -0500 Message-ID: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:07:29 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > > second passage in the post in question. > > > > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. Then what's YOUR problem. Post it or suppress it. But I > hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this > point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. You're assumption is that OTHERS will be as imperceptive as you. And hence you BAN ME! > Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be > misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. Even after admitting the ERROR is on your part? Not logical. You're trying to justify your heavy-handed will to BAN. That way, > the respectful tone is maintained. There is nothing disrespectful about either passage YOU'VE questioned. Remember that the readership includes > people from all backgrounds and cultures. Irrelevant justification. You're groping for excuses. I have been surprised many times > when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. Nothing would then ever get posted in your scenario. Unless it meets your prejudices. I try to make sure the > chance of this is kept to a minimum. > I don't know that. You're suppression to posting ratio would be required to make that determination; it would have to be independently confirmed. > And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." > makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you > rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I > assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > You sound like a schoolmarm. A self-righteous, prudish old bag. What gives you the right? God's charter? It doesn't come from Him. > > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > > > > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure > those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and > unfettered consultation. > You're completely fettering my consultation. But that's okay. You possess the prescience to know better. Again, you're groping for justification of your suppressing the presentation of my views to others. > I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in > question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. > Mr. Detweiler, you appear to me to be completely shameless and drunk on your little power to muzzle people who don't echo your opinions. > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai Again, I ask you to post my message since as you acknowledge above its about IDEAS. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Fri Nov 22 07:59:06 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:35:33 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr08.primenet.com [206.165.5.108]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA04978 for <@moa.net>; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:40:39 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA09540 for @moa.net; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:40:38 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611211540.IAA09540@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:40:37 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 21, 96 10:07:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, When you make the modifications asked or post something which meets the charter of the newsgroup, I will be happy to post it. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > From @moa.net Thu Nov 21 08:05:55 1996 > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA07420 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:05:54 -0700 (MST) > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:00:43 -0500 > Message-ID: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:07:29 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > References: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > > > > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > > > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > > > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > > > second passage in the post in question. > > > > > > > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. > > Then what's YOUR problem. Post it or suppress it. > > But I > > hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this > > point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. > > You're assumption is that OTHERS will be as imperceptive as you. And hence > you BAN ME! > > > Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be > > misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. > > Even after admitting the ERROR is on your part? Not logical. You're trying > to justify your heavy-handed will to BAN. > > That way, > > the respectful tone is maintained. > > There is nothing disrespectful about either passage YOU'VE questioned. > > Remember that the readership includes > > people from all backgrounds and cultures. > > Irrelevant justification. You're groping for excuses. > > I have been surprised many times > > when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. > > Nothing would then ever get posted in your scenario. Unless it meets > your prejudices. > > I try to make sure the > > chance of this is kept to a minimum. > > > > I don't know that. You're suppression to posting ratio would be required > to make that determination; it would have to be independently confirmed. > > > And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." > > makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you > > rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I > > assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > > > > You sound like a schoolmarm. A self-righteous, prudish old bag. What gives > you the right? God's charter? It doesn't come from Him. > > > > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > > > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > > > > > > > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure > > those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and > > unfettered consultation. > > > > You're completely fettering my consultation. But that's okay. You possess > the prescience to know better. Again, you're groping for justification of > your suppressing the presentation of my views to others. > > > I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in > > question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. > > > > Mr. Detweiler, you appear to me to be completely shameless and drunk on your > little power to muzzle people who don't echo your opinions. > > > Dick Detweiler > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > Again, I ask you to post my message since as you acknowledge above its about > IDEAS. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Fri Nov 22 08:18:32 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:11:25 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA00181; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:16:46 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling through this morass.... The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the power to change the world.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sat Nov 23 07:33:30 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:48:10 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA13654; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA01560; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 22, 96 08:18:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== From - Sun Nov 24 10:10:50 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:34:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F108.4BEF@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:41:44 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611211540.IAA09540@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 What I wrote meets the charter of the newsgroup and the "modifications" you want are unnecessary and unjustifiable. You yourself acknowledged your request for "modification" was based on your own misreading and misunderstanding of the post. God save us if the Baha'i Faith comes down to people like you "protecting" us.... I ask you again to post it or pass it on to someone else who's more rational than you. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > When you make the modifications asked or post something which meets the > charter of the newsgroup, I will be happy to post it. > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > From @moa.net Thu Nov 21 08:05:55 1996 > > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA07420 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 199 > > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net > > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > > Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:00:43 -0500 > > Message-ID: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> > > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:07:29 -0500 > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > > CC: @moa.net > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > References: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > > > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > > > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > > > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > > > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > > > > > > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > > > > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > > > > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > > > > second passage in the post in question. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. > > > > Then what's YOUR problem. Post it or suppress it. > > > > But I > > > hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this > > > point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. > > > > You're assumption is that OTHERS will be as imperceptive as you. And hence > > you BAN ME! > > > > > Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be > > > misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. > > > > Even after admitting the ERROR is on your part? Not logical. You're trying > > to justify your heavy-handed will to BAN. > > > > That way, > > > the respectful tone is maintained. > > > > There is nothing disrespectful about either passage YOU'VE questioned. > > > > Remember that the readership includes > > > people from all backgrounds and cultures. > > > > Irrelevant justification. You're groping for excuses. > > > > I have been surprised many times > > > when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. > > > > Nothing would then ever get posted in your scenario. Unless it meets > > your prejudices. > > > > I try to make sure the > > > chance of this is kept to a minimum. > > > > > > > I don't know that. You're suppression to posting ratio would be required > > to make that determination; it would have to be independently confirmed. > > > > > And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." > > > makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you > > > rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I > > > assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > > > > > > > You sound like a schoolmarm. A self-righteous, prudish old bag. What gives > > you the right? God's charter? It doesn't come from Him. > > > > > > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > > > > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > > > > > > > > > > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure > > > those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and > > > unfettered consultation. > > > > > > > You're completely fettering my consultation. But that's okay. You possess > > the prescience to know better. Again, you're groping for justification of > > your suppressing the presentation of my views to others. > > > > > I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in > > > question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. > > > > > > > Mr. Detweiler, you appear to me to be completely shameless and drunk on your > > little power to muzzle people who don't echo your opinions. > > > > > Dick Detweiler > > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > Again, I ask you to post my message since as you acknowledge above its about > > IDEAS. > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 24 10:10:54 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:07:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F8B3.400A@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:14:27 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: [Fwd: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled and HONESTY] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------23F0783A7928" X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------23F0783A7928 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Will I be permitted a hearing here? Oh my, perhaps I should first consult the holy texts.... No, I might misread them.... Others will read them for me--they shall tell me what they mean. God has inspired them.... What I should do? Dare I.... Oh this world of muck and mud.... Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== Forgive me if I hurt your feelings! -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------23F0783A7928 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:48:10 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA13654; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA01560; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 22, 96 08:18:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------23F0783A7928-- From - Sun Nov 24 10:10:59 1996 Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:11:00 -0500 Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id IAA28604; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id IAA28598; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id IAA28590; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:07:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F8B3.400A@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:14:27 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @moa.net Subject: [Fwd: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled and HONESTY] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------23F0783A7928" X-Mozilla-Status: 0009 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------23F0783A7928 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Will I be permitted a hearing here? Oh my, perhaps I should first consult the holy texts.... No, I might misread them.... Others will read them for me--they shall tell me what they mean. God has inspired them.... What I should do? Dare I.... Oh this world of muck and mud.... Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== Forgive me if I hurt your feelings! -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------23F0783A7928 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:48:10 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA13654; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA01560; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 22, 96 08:18:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------23F0783A7928-- From - Sun Nov 24 10:11:05 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:11:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F9AE.6D7C@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:18:38 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Thank you Richard for Teaching me what the Baha'i Faith truly stands for. Again, I believe you are CENSORING me and ask you to pass this post on to someone else. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will > not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic > in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the > following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight > into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. > > "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid > stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By > the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to > another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for > yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love > for your country, but in love for all mankind." > > - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained > as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). > > "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its > influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is > conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts > which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be > combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures > and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the > heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, > that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in > the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." > > - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 > > "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech > a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas > the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The > force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the > effects of the latter endure a century." > - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 20 > > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > through this morass.... > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 24 10:11:07 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:56:11 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.5.102]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id LAA20392; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:01:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id LAA13066; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:01:15 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611231801.LAA13066@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:01:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3296F108.4BEF@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 23, 96 07:41:44 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Dear Mr. Glaysher, When you make the modifications asked or post something which meets the charter of the newsgroup, I will be happy to post it. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai From - Sun Nov 24 10:47:59 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:40:49 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id KAA07287; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:46:11 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-3.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Let Soc.Religion.Bahai Participants Hear & Decide Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:47:23 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 153 Message-ID: <32986E0B.5210@moa.net> References: <578ls9$6ap@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 What do YOU think? Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the > moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, > it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to > the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. > False. They go to the heart of the matter, i.e., how it functions. > If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest > news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first > is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. "Vent your frustrations" is in the same category as my "Utterly naive." I don't seek to deprive you of your conscience that apparently believes that. You may say what you wish. It won't hurt my little feelings. I believe you're again manipulating discussion in a dictatorial, oppressive manner unjustified by anything in the Baha'i Writings which you apparently cloak your shameless deeds in. This newsgroup, > however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere > of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. > The abuse of the conscience of a member of the Baha'i Faith and, apparently regular practice of distortion and censorship is not a suitable topic? I can understand why you wouldn't wish to have anyone else know.... > Thank you for participating, > I'm not participating at all. You are self-righteously depriving me of that. You are also depriving others of hearing or disagreeing with my opinions. > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 68 > > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Sian Smith > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > >> > > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > > another person). > > > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > > reads.... If that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > > is it? > > > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > > Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > > > > > Loving greetings > > > > > > Sian Smith > > > Wellington > > > New Zealand > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > = End submitted post =========================== YOU DEAR CENSORS have shown your true colors once again. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA Is this happening to YOU too? Assuming this post is now CENSORED, what do YOU make of it? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Nov 24 10:11:08 1996 Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:03:35 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.5.102]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id LAA20484; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:08:40 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id LAA13655; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:08:40 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611231808.LAA13655@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:08:39 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3296F9AE.6D7C@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 23, 96 08:18:38 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 > > Thank you Richard for Teaching me what the Baha'i Faith truly stands for. > > Again, I believe you are CENSORING me and ask you to pass this post on to > someone else. > It is the policy of the moderation team that we are responsible for the posts that come in on our watches which typically last a week. After that week we still are individually responsible for the posts submitted on our time. In the future if you would like to address your remarks to the moderation team, please send them to srb-mods@bcca.org which will reach all of the moderators. However, the decision on the posts in question rest with me as per the moderation policy of the newsgroup. Dick Detweiler From - Wed Nov 27 06:00:35 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.55) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:10:56 -0500 Message-ID: <329AD1DA.6351@moa.net> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: srb-mods@bcca.org CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <56tfo6$cgg@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <56vdgi$eth@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <32945C68.3378@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be posted. I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to which this was responding. > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 27 06:00:37 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.55) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:24 -0500 Message-ID: <329AD35D.6E67@moa.net> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:24:13 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: srb-mods@bcca.org CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Anne Furlong wrote: > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > whatsoever. "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... [clip] > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. then the > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're too quick to leap over that fact for me. We are > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > reason for our failure to love? > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community or individuals under that Tyranny? > All the best, > > Anne Furlong > St John's Newfoundland Canada -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Nov 27 06:00:45 1996 Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:10:56 -0500 Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id TAA17927; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:14:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id TAA17918; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from csus.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id TAA17898; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu by csus.edu with SMTP id AA12940 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:14:47 -0800 Received: from DSS_486/MAILQUEUE by sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 26 Nov 96 16:15:01 -800 Received: from MAILQUEUE by DSS_486 (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 26 Nov 96 16:14:52 -800 From: "Eric D. Pierce" To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:14:44 PST8PDT Subject: fwd: Re: find talisman Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-Id: <44F94416146@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu> X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:59:11 -0500 (EST) From: "X.500 Query Program" Subject: Re: find talisman To: "Eric D. Pierce" 2 exact matches found for 'talisman': "talisman, User Groups" Also Known As: talisman Owner: Joshua S Greenbaum, Horace H Rackham School of Graduate Studies More Info (URL): quit quit Errors To: Juan R Cole, College of Literature, Science and the Arts Requests To: Juan R Cole, College of Literature, Science and the Arts Associated Domain: umich.edu Others May Join: FALSE E-Mail Members: 0002005383@mcimail.com 102164.1365@CompuServe.COM 72110.2126@compuserve.com aelyria@goodnet.com AErfani@aol.com ahriazati@CCGATE.HAC.COM ali.m.afnan@btinternet.com babakm@bain.oz.au banani@ucla.edu belove@sover.net bn872@freenet.carleton.ca boatright@cjnetworks.com brburl@mailbag.com burlb@bmi.net candy@pc.jaring.my cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.edu Charles_Cornell@etsu.edu cjh@interaccess.com dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com edda@bwc.org ferguson@generation.net ffdbl@aurora.alaska.edu firouz@au.ac.th forumbahai@es.co.nz frpsm@mahidol.ac.th hai.iskandar@forum.va.gov healy@pipeline.com hildreth@cse.bridgeport.edu imago@MindSpring.COM iskandar@ns.moran.com jarmstro@sun1.iusb.edu jcornell@mobynet.com jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu jrcole@umich.edu jrussell@northlink.com ldroege209@aol.com lgl@island-resort.com meghas@sparcom.com mfarhad@bwc.org mfoster@qni.com mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn mlp@sover.net mlustig@uni-duisburg.de NAZX73A@prodigy.com ndm2j@server1.mail.virginia.edu nineteen@onramp.net orey@csus.edu @moa.net payamA@aol.com phoenix2@pond.com PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu PPAkhavan@aol.com raya@ism.net rlg0001@jove.acs.unt.edu rosss@u.washington.edu rwittorf@usbnc.org seanm@bwc.org simon.mawhinney@hertford.oxford.ac.uk skygram@total.net smaneck@berry.edu sscholl@jeffnet.org steve.ua@ix.netcom.com StrayMutt@aol.com tcope@phoenix.kent.edu Wilgar@sirius.com Last Modified: Mon Nov 25 08:51:00 1996 Modified By: Joshua S Greenbaum, Horace H Rackham School of Graduate Studies ------- "Jared M Talisman, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts" Also Known As: Jared M Talisman Jared M Talisman 1 Jared Michael Talisman Jared Talisman E-Mail Address: None registered in this service Title: Student, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts Your query failed: Invalid syntax From - Wed Nov 27 06:00:39 1996 Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:32:53 -0500 Received: from Packard (Port114.cjnetworks.com [206.52.159.169]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA27030; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:37:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net>, srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:29:01 -0600 Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." and that it and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters restrictions on abusive language. The group of moderators further have requested that one of our number forward to you several selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech and the care with which we must choose words. Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. Additionally, you may contact the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. I will forward their address to you in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > Cc: @moa.net > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > posted. > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > which this was responding. > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > through this morass.... > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > power to change the world.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > From - Wed Nov 27 06:29:17 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:15:58 -0500 Message-ID: <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:22:47 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. and that it > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > restrictions on abusive language. "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions you differ with. The group of moderators further > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! and the care > with which we must choose words. > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. Additionally, you may contact > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. I will forward their address to you > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > Cc: @moa.net > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > posted. > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 07:55:36 1996 Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:38 -0500 Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id GAA20289; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id GAA20284; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id GAA20280; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: <329C26DE.A6E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @moa.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on soc.religion.bahai? Read this. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > and that it > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > restrictions on abusive language. > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions > you differ with. > > The group of moderators further > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! > > and the care > > with which we must choose words. > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > Additionally, you may contact > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > I will forward their address to you > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > > posted. > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 07:55:33 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: <329C26DE.A6E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on soc.religion.bahai? Read this. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > and that it > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > restrictions on abusive language. > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions > you differ with. > > The group of moderators further > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! > > and the care > > with which we must choose words. > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > Additionally, you may contact > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > I will forward their address to you > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > > posted. > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 09:20:38 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: <329C26DE.A6E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on soc.religion.bahai? Read this. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > and that it > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > restrictions on abusive language. > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions > you differ with. > > The group of moderators further > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! > > and the care > > with which we must choose words. > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > Additionally, you may contact > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > I will forward their address to you > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > > posted. > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 09:20:41 1996 Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:38 -0500 Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id GAA20289; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id GAA20284; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id GAA20280; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: <329C26DE.A6E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @moa.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on soc.religion.bahai? Read this. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > and that it > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > restrictions on abusive language. > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions > you differ with. > > The group of moderators further > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! > > and the care > > with which we must choose words. > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > Additionally, you may contact > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > I will forward their address to you > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > > posted. > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 10:34:16 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: <329C26DE.A6E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on soc.religion.bahai? Read this. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > and that it > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > restrictions on abusive language. > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions > you differ with. > > The group of moderators further > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! > > and the care > > with which we must choose words. > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > Additionally, you may contact > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > I will forward their address to you > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > > posted. > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 09:20:51 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:02 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id SAA29183; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id SAA29175; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id SAA29164; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id SAA06363; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:48 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole X-Sender: jrcole@seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu To: Rick Boatright cc: Talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: soc.religion.bahai moderation policies. In-Reply-To: <199611271846.MAA25366@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Yes, I wanted also to say that I have found Rick in particular quite a good and accommodating moderator/editor who despite vehemently disagreeing with what I had to say did allow me to express my views on SRB. That said, I think it should also be acknowledged that Rick and the other moderators are constrained in a number of ways. First, the SRB guidelines now disallow any criticism of any religious institution. This means that one may not criticize the Vatican. But it also means that one may not criticize the NSA, the counsellors, or the House, or, possibly, even their policies or specific actions. Second, the moderators are in close contact with an Auxiliary Board Member for Protection and more occasionally with the Counsellors who have special responsibilities for protection [and I read protection as inquisition and heresy-hunting], and presumably they pretty much have to do as they are told by these modern-day Torquemadas. I suspect the LSA is far less important or salient. However, all this does not make SRB much different from most of the other moderated Religion lists, most of which also have found ways to subtly protect orthodoxy (indeed, SRB may have at least before a month ago been rather liberal in comparison). talk.religion.Bahai, as an unmoderated list, could fairly easily be created by someone. Or Talisman@umich.edu could be used for the purpose. Finally, it should be recognized that Baha'is live in a highly censored environment. They are subject to prepublication censorship, and whatever they say is constantly monitored in the community, a form of postpublication censorship. Files are kept on prominent e-mail posters who do not appear to be toeing the party line. Baha'is constantly spy on and report on their fellow Baha'is, not only to LSAs, the NSA, the House and the ABMs and counsellors, but even to former members of those institutions. The House and the counsellors not too long ago threatened 5 prominent posters to Talisman with being declared covenant breakers if they did not fall silent. To be a Baha'i is to be censored and constantly monitored and threatened when one's speech does not conform to fundamentalist orthodoxy. This has nothing to do with SRB. It is the Remey-Holly-Martin-Semple-Arbab party line about the way the religion should be run. One should have one's eyes open about this. cheers Juan From - Sun Dec 01 09:21:08 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:45:11 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id XAA22672; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id XAA22670; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id XAA22665; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id XAA07487; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole X-Sender: jrcole@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu To: Susan Maneck cc: StrayMutt@aol.com, talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Terms of Estrangement In-Reply-To: <45247CF20C1@odin.berry.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Well, first of all, the Baha'i theory of human nature is simply incorrect and has been proven so by successive secretaries of the US NSA, each of whom has been initially welcomed as a golden boy bringing new vigor, high standards, and hope to the national center. But after only a few years each is increasingly viewed as authoritarian, thin-skinned, unresponsive, egoistic, and possibly even a bit corrupt. That this happens over and over again suggests to me that the adulation and slack-jawed faith the American community invest in these individuals has a highly corrosive effect over time. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are no exceptions, and Baha'i institutions are exemplars of this principle, not exceptions to it. Second, Susan is absolutely right that incumbency serves in a large community like the US as a de facto form of nomination and perpetual campaigning, which is inherently unfair. What she does not acknowledge is that not only de facto campaigning goes on, but quite deliberate campaigning is engaged in by incumbents, as well. A presently sitting member of the NSA was overheard to remark that he "missed being on the NSA" and would have to go about the country giving talks so as to get back on it. This quite reliable report demonstrates why I suggest an absolute term limit of one 5-year term per NSA member. Even previous service is fairly well-remembered and thus functions as a form of campaigning that can easily be exploited by the ambitious. cheers Juan From - Sun Dec 01 10:48:18 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:21:46 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA17855; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA17853; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA17847; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.42) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:20:48 -0500 Message-ID: <32A195DD.F46@moa.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:27:41 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Amin Banani CC: Talisman@umich.edu, Irfan@umich.edu Subject: Re: NY Times 8 Oct 1996 "Iran Wary of WWW" mentions Baha'i References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Amin Banani wrote: > > >>>IRAN WARY OF WORLD WIDE WEB > >>>With access to the Internet increasing in Iran, the government there is > >>>trying to centralize all access through the Ministry of Posts and > >>>Telecommunications in order to ban sites of the Mujahedeen Khalq and > >other > >>>opposition groups, as well as sites of the Bahai religion, > >pornography, > >or > >>>"Western propaganda." A senior Iranian official says: "There is stuff > >on > >>>the Internet that people have access to that is as offensive as 'The > >Satanic > >>>Verses' and it is updated every day. We believe a certain level of > >decency > >>>must be provided." (New York Times 8 Oct 96 A4) > >>> > > > > > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- > > Sheila Banani > 2320 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90402 > Tel (310) 394-5449 > Fax (310) 394-6167 > E-Mail: Banani@UCLA.Edu (Sheila) You seem to imply CENSORSHIP is unique to Iran. In my experience, SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI operates probably just as oppressively as Iran. Apparently, it goes with the culture.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 10:48:19 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.42) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:24:36 -0500 Message-ID: <32A196C1.7448@moa.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:31:29 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Burl Barer CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: USAtire References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Burl Barer wrote: > > >Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on > soc.religion.bahai? Read this. > > > > > For this reason, I am a fan of satire rather than sarcasm. > Satire is a rapier, sarcasm is a chain saw. > You can accomplish far more, and have a greater impact, with gentle satire. > > Sarcasm is a form of verbal abuse. Satire is enlightening humor. > > Calling our co-religionists fascists and fundamentalists, liberals, > conservatives, etc. is not in anyone best interests -- in fact the Universal > House of Justice has specifically instructed us to not use such divisionary > language in our e-mail communications. > > Be a peace-maker. > > Happy Thanksgiving, > > Burl > **** > "THE SAINT" by Burl Barer, coming from PocketBooks this March! Home Page: > www.bmi.net/burlb Following the CENSORS, you glump satire and sarcasm too easily together. I suggest you study the genre--start with Jonathan Swift. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 10:48:21 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:44:32 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA19313; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:48:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA19311; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA19307; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.42) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:43:09 -0500 Message-ID: <32A19B19.1C5F@moa.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:50:01 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: Talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: soc.religion.bahai moderation policies. References: <199611271846.MAA25366@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Speaking only for myself, and not officially for the moderators group > of SRB, I offer the following to the talisman community. > > The SRB moderators are not interested in censoring IDEAS. We freely > allow people to post all sorts of things to the newsgroup all the > time including fairly extreme and fairly hateful things. > Not in my experience. I believe my IDEAS were CENSORED. I said nothing that was either extreme or hateful. > What we are concerned with is flame bait. The moderators long ago > discovered that newsgroups become useless when they are reduced to > flame wars, and that flames are easiest stopped at their source. As > a result, it is the standard practice of the moderators to request > minor edits of material to reduce the flamability of the rhetoric. They weren't minor edits in my opinion. They were complete distortions of my thinking. After resisting one for over a week, I finally gave up and bent my knee to the dictators more than I should have . . . just to get heard in however a revised and watered-down way.... Fascism always accomplishes such oppression while looking out for the common good.... > This sometimes comes as a request for the additon of a "some" or an > IMHO, and sometimes for a reduction in intensity of language. > Needless interference in communication, in my opinion. The passage you absolutely FORCED me to stick in a "SOME" was unnecessarily diluted by your priggish manipulation of the dialogue behind the scenes. > This editing process is not substantially different that that of any > other edited publication. > Complete lie.... > No post of Fredericks has been rejected by the moderators. FALSE! One two > posts the moderators have requested _very_ minor re-writes in order > to reduce the chance of mis-understanding by our international user > base and to reduce the likelyhood of flame responses. > TWO at least and despite about a week of constantly attempting to have each one posted. One has yet to be posted so I gave up and sent it to TALISMAN. > No post of Fredericks, including his disagreement with the moderators > is excluded from the newsgroup, but our "Mrs Grundy" circuits light > up with some of his use of language. > FALSE. I attempted repeatedly to post messages notifying others on SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI that the "moderators" were CENSORING and manipulating the conversation. Mrs. Grundy knew better! > For completly uncensored public forums for these ideas, > talk.religion.misc, news.admin.misc, and news.admin.abuse are > available. SRB is a moderated group, and the moderators impose > standards of "reasonableness" which we feel are not extreme. > I feel they are extreme and find little difference between what you're doing and what fascist and communist CENSORS always did. Richard Detweiler was exceedingly unreasonable and dictatorial in his handling of my posts. > Again, that's my take on it. I have _not_ discussed this post with > the other moderators, and am not saying that everything I've written > here would be agreed to by all the mods 100%. > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha loathe Tyranny and Oppression. Has the new Revelation become a new form of Oppression? Run by humorless apparatchiks? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 01 10:48:24 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:51:01 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA19798; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA19796; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA19792; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.42) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:49:20 -0500 Message-ID: <32A19C8D.6F4@moa.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:56:13 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SManeck@berry.edu CC: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <445D77B7BE5@odin.berry.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Susan Maneck wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > Your postings are not what I would call "hate speech" but they are > "flames." I think you will make your points much more effectively if > your tone were a bit more temperate. I say that as someone who > sympathizes with your concerns. > > Susan Tone? I'll chose the tone I damn well like! To hell with you bunch of self-appointed overseers of public discussion.... Temperate? As insipid and devoid of personality as the circuits of a computer board! Is this what the Baha'i Faith amounts to? Old biddies shaking their crooked fingers in the faces of naughty little boys.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Dec 02 06:19:22 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.42) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 10:45:21 -0500 Message-ID: <32A1A9AC.625F@moa.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 10:52:12 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Lord CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <9611301035.AA27957@aurora.alaska.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Daniel Lord wrote: > > Dear Frederick: > > I found this unfortunate exchange on Talisman, but was happy to see your > name. > "Unfortunate"? What a peculiar way of putting it.... > Do you remember me from when Jung-Sook and I were in family housing at > Michigan? > Yes, I do. > All best wishes, > Daniel Lord > ffdbl@aurora.alaska.edu > > ---------- > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > To: Talisman@umich.edu > > Cc: @moa.net > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 2:32 AM > > > > Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on > soc.religion.bahai? Read this. > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > > > > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > > > > > and that it > > > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > > > restrictions on abusive language. > > > > > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come > on! > > > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express > opinions > > > you differ with. > > > > > > The group of moderators further > > > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > > > > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in > either > > > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving > characterization > > > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them > yourself! > > > > > > and the care > > > > with which we must choose words. > > > > > > > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't > believe > > > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, > prevailing > > > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > > > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > > > > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > > > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > > > > > Additionally, you may contact > > > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > > > > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > > > > > I will forward their address to you > > > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > > > > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > > > > > Rick Boatright > > > > co-moderator > > > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I > appeal > > > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to > be > > > > > posted. > > > > > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, > to > > > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has > always > > > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was > difficult > > > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and > stumbling > > > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is > this: > > > > > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Mon Dec 02 07:43:28 1996 Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Dec 1996 07:32:14 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id HAA13394; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:37:30 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-17.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Persian Baha'is Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 07:38:55 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 24 Message-ID: <32A2CDDF.8B2@moa.net> References: <"ayLT5B.A.VzB.AChoy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: jer.1844@mail.utexas.edu CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0010 jer.1844@mail.utexas.edu wrote: > > Yes, I guess that is vague . . . > Let's try this: > > I'm writing a research paper concerning the various ways that the > practice of the Baha'i Faith goes beyond the boundaries of any one culture. > It is a short paper, and in order to keep the discussion as free of > generalizations as possible, I am talking to individual Persian-American > Baha'is who are either first or second generation residents of the States. I think you're starting off with a misnomer: "Persian Baha'is." "Persian" culture ceased to exist long ago. You won't find "Persia" on a map.... Not unless you go back a hundred years or so....or back to Cyrus the Great.... IRANIAN culture would be a more precise term, historically and sociologically speaking. I don't know why Iranian Baha'is so often choose to call themselves "Persian Baha'is," do you? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Dec 04 06:15:10 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.56) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:11:13 -0500 Message-ID: <32A40C6D.1ACF@moa.net> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:18:05 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LineSync Architecture CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: use of Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 LineSync Architecture wrote: > > I find the continued disparaging language of Frederick Glaysher to be most > offensive. This list is for academic discourse which is easily carried on > without character assumptions and accusations. > > Julie Lineberger Give me an example of "disparaging language." Sorry to offend your FEELINGS. Your message leads me to believe you don't know anything about academic discourse.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Dec 04 06:15:11 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.56) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:18:30 -0500 Message-ID: <32A40E22.25DD@moa.net> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:25:22 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juan R Cole CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: use of Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Juan R Cole wrote: > > Frederick: > > The self-righteous prig remark was out of line. Talisman doesn't have > many rules, but personal insults are off limits. I want you to stick > around and become a productive part of the list, but this sort of behavior > can get you kicked off by majority vote. It would be out of my hands. > > JRIC I really don't think it was "out of line." It seems to me to have been quite accurate.... I'll try not to hurt any FEELINGS. It won't be easy given the hypersensitivity of some people. I'll consider your suggestions along these lines more carefully. Incidentally, thanks for the info on LISTSERVS. It may take me several days to read and think about it. Something for you to ponder: There's more than one way to skin a cat. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Dec 04 06:15:12 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.56) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:23:32 -0500 Message-ID: <32A40F51.2673@moa.net> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:30:25 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Quanta Dawn-Light CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: use of Lists References: <155BBC53EAC@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Quanta Dawn-Light wrote: > > Well dear friend, > > I feel as a friend. If you don't, that is your prerogative. > Got not much else to say. Even if I did, you don't want to hear. > My sincere apologies. Let's be friends. Okay? > cheers, > q. > > *************************************** > Life is a pattern of relationships (*_*) -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Dec 05 06:49:30 1996 Message-ID: <32A6B6CA.490C@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:49:30 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juan R Cole CC: @MOA.net Subject: FATWA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 000d jsgreen is banishing me on the basis of "numerous complaints"! Is that all it takes? What about FREE SPEECH and individual CONSCIENCE? Can you plead for my life? Don't let them send me to the gas chambers! The gulag! Seriously, this is a serious issue.... As a published writer and poet, I find it quite disturbing.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Dec 05 06:33:08 1996 Message-ID: <32A6B2F4.5808@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:33:08 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Logan" CC: Sandra Fotos , Juan Cole , "Eric D. Pierce" , Talisman , Soc.Religion.Bahai Subject: Re: Serial Tantrums References: <199612050543.XAA02813@mailhost.onramp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 001d Richard C. Logan wrote: > > >No, no, no.... Don't be pedant.... Cite MY nasty, brutish remarks that > >offend > >your FEELINGS so.... TELL me I'm wrong. I'll consider it. Give me some > >reasoning.... NOT footnotes. > > > >I'm surrounded by books here in my study and have plenty to read already > >though > >I'll read what you write HERE. > > Dear Doctor Cole, > > I formally request that Mr. Glaysher be removed from the list, or at the > very least he be admonished to stop being so personal and contentious. > Everyday I read some unpleasant and rude remarks. Is this really > neccesary? > > Richard C. Logan > nineteen@onramp.net > Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock" > https://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/ My apologies if I've made "some unpleasant and rude remarks." If Mr. Logan would give me more of a sense of exactly what it is he finds to be so, I could respond more precisely. If you all will permit me, I find it unpleasant that vague accusations against me might result in the GAS OVENS! I mean really, come on! The post of my cited above appears to me to be quite innocuous. How that could be grounds for ostracism is beyond me. Okay. I'll try, sincerely, to be nicer.... Give me chance. Heh, isn't this the newsgroup that has had on it so much about FREE SPEECH and CONSCIENCE lately? (How humiliating, having to beg for one's life.) -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Dec 05 05:55:22 1996 Received: from pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.63.80) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Dec 1996 11:45:39 -0500 Received: from localhost by pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id LAA27651; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:50:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Joshua S. Greenbaum" X-Sender: jsgreen@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu To: @moa.net Subject: Talisman Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 000d Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am sorry to inform you that due to numerous complaints regarding your behavior, I have been forced to remove you from the Talisman list for a period of six months. ******************************************************************************* Josh Greenbaum "For we are like tree trunks in the snow. Program Assistant In appearance they lie sleekly and a Center for Middle Eastern little push should be enough to set them and North African Studies rolling. No, it can't be done, for they 144 Lane Hall 1290 are firmly wedded to the ground. (313) 764-0350 But see, even that is only an appearance." jsgreen@umich.edu -Franz Kafka From - Mon Dec 02 07:42:49 1996 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (134.117.136.20) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 19:33:03 -0500 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet2.carleton.ca [134.117.136.22]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id TAA12446 for <@moa.net>; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:38:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca (8.6.12/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA05190; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:38:03 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:38:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199612020038.TAA05190@freenet2.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: @moa.net Subject: Re: soc.religion.bahai moderation policies. Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Greetings from Ottawa, Canada. I am very interested in reading any post of yours which was censored by srb. Fare very Well, Michael > >Rick Boatright wrote: >> >> Speaking only for myself, and not officially for the moderators group >> of SRB, I offer the following to the talisman community. >> >> The SRB moderators are not interested in censoring IDEAS. We freely >> allow people to post all sorts of things to the newsgroup all the >> time including fairly extreme and fairly hateful things. >> > >Not in my experience. I believe my IDEAS were CENSORED. I said nothing >that was either extreme or hateful. > >> What we are concerned with is flame bait. The moderators long ago >> discovered that newsgroups become useless when they are reduced to >> flame wars, and that flames are easiest stopped at their source. As >> a result, it is the standard practice of the moderators to request >> minor edits of material to reduce the flamability of the rhetoric. > >They weren't minor edits in my opinion. They were complete distortions >of my thinking. After resisting one for over a week, I finally gave up >and bent my knee to the dictators more than I should have . . . just to >get heard in however a revised and watered-down way.... Fascism always >accomplishes such oppression while looking out for the common good.... > >> This sometimes comes as a request for the additon of a "some" or an >> IMHO, and sometimes for a reduction in intensity of language. >> > >Needless interference in communication, in my opinion. The passage you >absolutely FORCED me to stick in a "SOME" was unnecessarily diluted by >your priggish manipulation of the dialogue behind the scenes. > >> This editing process is not substantially different that that of any >> other edited publication. >> > >Complete lie.... > >> No post of Fredericks has been rejected by the moderators. > >FALSE! > >One two >> posts the moderators have requested _very_ minor re-writes in order >> to reduce the chance of mis-understanding by our international user >> base and to reduce the likelyhood of flame responses. >> > >TWO at least and despite about a week of constantly attempting to have >each one posted. One has yet to be posted so I gave up and sent it to >TALISMAN. > >> No post of Fredericks, including his disagreement with the moderators >> is excluded from the newsgroup, but our "Mrs Grundy" circuits light >> up with some of his use of language. >> > >FALSE. I attempted repeatedly to post messages notifying others on >SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI that the "moderators" were CENSORING and manipulating >the conversation. Mrs. Grundy knew better! > >> For completly uncensored public forums for these ideas, >> talk.religion.misc, news.admin.misc, and news.admin.abuse are >> available. SRB is a moderated group, and the moderators impose >> standards of "reasonableness" which we feel are not extreme. >> > >I feel they are extreme and find little difference between what you're >doing and what fascist and communist CENSORS always did. Richard >Detweiler was exceedingly unreasonable and dictatorial in his handling >of my posts. > >> Again, that's my take on it. I have _not_ discussed this post with >> the other moderators, and am not saying that everything I've written >> here would be agreed to by all the mods 100%. >> >> Rick Boatright >> co-moderator >> soc.religion.bahai > >Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha loathe Tyranny and Oppression. Has the new >Revelation become a new form of Oppression? Run by humorless apparatchiks? > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Thu Dec 05 14:45:39 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.50) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:33:46 -0500 Message-ID: <32A72538.39F5@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:40:40 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Schaut CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Richard Logan's Comments References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Schaut wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > You asked, > > >What "episode" do you refer to? Can you flesh that out a little more? > > > >I believe my message contained sufficient facts for my point to be made. > >You're certainly welcome to ask around if you wish. > > > > > >Regards, > >Rick I'm asking you, but you apparently imagine it's all self-evident. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Dec 05 14:45:40 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.50) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:36:42 -0500 Message-ID: <32A725E8.5C6E@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:43:36 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: belove@sover.net CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Serial Tantrums References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 belove@sover.net wrote: > > Philip here: > > I second this request. > On what basis? I don't find anything in THIS clip a justifiable basis for character assassination and ostracism.... As though it were all self-evident.... > --- On Wed, 4 Dec 96 23:45:15 -0600 "Richard C. Logan" > wrote: > > >>No, no, no.... Don't be pedant.... Cite MY nasty, brutish remarks that > > >>offend > >>your FEELINGS so.... TELL me I'm wrong. I'll consider it. Give me > some > >>reasoning.... NOT footnotes. > >> > >>I'm surrounded by books here in my study and have plenty to read already > > >>though > >>I'll read what you write HERE. > > > >Dear Doctor Cole, > > > >I formally request that Mr. Glaysher be removed from the list, or at the > >very least he be admonished to stop being so personal and contentious. > >Everyday I read some unpleasant and rude remarks. Is this really > >neccesary? > > > > > >Richard C. Logan > >nineteen@onramp.net > >Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock" > >https://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/ > > > > > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- > > ------------------------------------- > E-mail: belove@sover.net > Date: 12/5/96 > Time: 9:06:20 AM > > This message was sent by Chameleon > ------------------------------------- -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Tue Dec 03 06:11:47 1996 Received: from stargate.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.63.82) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Dec 1996 11:25:49 -0500 Received: from localhost by stargate.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id LAA13105; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:31:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:31:01 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole X-Sender: jrcole@stargate.rs.itd.umich.edu To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: use of Lists In-Reply-To: <32A2BFBA.501F@moa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Frederick: The self-righteous prig remark was out of line. Talisman doesn't have many rules, but personal insults are off limits. I want you to stick around and become a productive part of the list, but this sort of behavior can get you kicked off by majority vote. It would be out of my hands. JRIC From - Wed Dec 04 06:15:35 1996 Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Dec 1996 01:10:09 -0500 Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id BAA28204; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:09:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id BAA28194; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id BAA28180; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet6.carleton.ca [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id BAA29053; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca (8.8.3/NCF-Sun-Client) id BAA11397; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:09:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:09:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612040609.BAA11397@freenet6.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Richard Logan's Comments Cc: talisman@umich.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Greetings from Ottawa, Canada. If one upholds freedom of thought, then Richard is entitled to his personal understanding of Baha'i Scripture and authorized interpretation. Personally, I consider any attempt to interfere in and to dictate the personal understanding of Revelation the greatest cause of disunity, the greatest threat to the Covenant and a very severe test of the extent to which Baha'u'llah may achieve His primary mission, the unification in wondrous diversity of the human species. The one thing which has gone very wrong is that the Baha'is, the salt of unity in diversity to paraphrase Jesus, have, to a great extent, adopted a viewpoint filled with divisiveness. The greatest need of the present hour, and the one best remedy for all the particular problems which may be enumerated, is to toss aside our suspicions, accept that our natural personal difficulty with certain personality types, modes of thinking, theories and understandings are an inherent aspect of unity in diversity. It is the imposition of one understanding, the repression of other perceptions which places this Faith in the gravest crisis. Since this Faith was intended as an example to the peoples of the world on how unity in diversity may be achieved, such imposition and such repression threatens to defeat greater world peace. An interpretation and personal practise consistent with the understanding that Revealed Word on academic, as well as moral and spiritual, matters holds sway until at least the coming of the next Manifestation of God is valid and acceptable, unless this leads to intervention in the personal understanding and practise of others. If I choose to accept an understanding of the Baha'i principle of the agreement of science and religion to mean that whatsoever hath been proven by science the same is true, to no one is given the license to repress my thought. Little could be imagined more threatening to the Covenant, more ensured to destroy the edifice of unity than the premise, the assumption and the fancy that the Centre of Unity in Diversity, the Universal House of Justice ought to select one of the diverse understandings of Scripture and impose this on all the individuals of the human race. The variant that such an imposition may be conducted on all true believers, anyone unable to comply by definition ceasing to be a believer, would reduce the handiwork of the Universal Manifestation of God to a part, a segment, an exclusivist fraction of the species He intended be united. The legitimacy of the Centre of the Covenant, of the Guardian, of the Universal House of Justice to guide at a global level the affairs of the Faith ought not to be confused with the responsibility of each individual to expend on behalf of humanity what the great Creator has given, whether this be knowledge, experience, perspicacity, ethical fibre, anything whatsoever. It is a very serious misunderstanding of the Writings and miscalculation of the nature of the variety of humanity to imagine that the word "Covenant" may be used to dictate personal perception of the world around us, of the worlds beyond and of ultimate individual moral responsibility. However vital for the proper functioning of mature humanity that very great weight be placed on whatsoever streameth from the Mountain of God, neither the members of the Universal House of Justice, nor any individual believer can expect that each individual will accept any decree without limit. Such an acceptance, by definition, would prove to every unbiased observer that God had failed to raise up a mature species composed of mature individuals. The very definition of human being indicates one practising individual thought and taking reponsibility for personal acts of an ethical nature. This does not diminish the Universal House of Justice. Nothing could be more tragically limiting to the House of Justice than to produce the impossible, to create a species of supine and docile drones unable and unwilling to do anything except what is dictated. Nothing could be more contrary to the purpose of Baha'u'llah than to imagine He favoured the reduction of the very rich human potential to such absolutely immorally subservient drones, and that He backs the attacks against the human race and its individuals required to begin to approach so awesomely dark a goal. Looking on the bright side, we have identified the greatest protection of the Covenant and surest guarantee of the oneness of humanity. We need to see with light and without suspicion, without factions, without enemies. We need to accept the Baha'i view that one is allowed personal understandings within the Cause of God, the Cause of unity in diversity. May this find you all very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael >If the answer to all of these questions is yes, then something has gone >terribly wrong, because the religion is being controlled by persons who >believe virtually none of these things and who are willing to resort to >the most underhanded and despicable tactics to coerce consciences and >establish a theocratic dictatorship in which their word is law. > >If the answer to these questions is yes, then the further question is how >the Baha'i community can get back on track after having departed into the >wilderness of intolerant superstition. The various elements of this premise make assumptions that are not supported by the facts. In examining Professor Cole's argument for, the sake of brevity, I will extract from the euphemistic shell the nut of his contentions. 1). Baha'is or the Universal House of Justice practices: "Science must agree with Religion." 2). Abdu'l-Baha allowed for all forms of criticism that a believer may decide to define as a matter of conscience. Although, he has stated in other posts that there are exceptions to this where believers make a grab for power, for example. 3). The Baha'i Faith is subject to the current Academic standards. In Dr. Cole's opening rhetorical flourish he states: "Is the Baha'i faith dedicated to the unity of science and religion in some meaningful sense other than "science must acquiesce in whatever scripture and the Universal House of Justice dictate" All one can really say to this is--this is the agreement entered into between God and Man, the Covenant. The importance of this covenant is to keep it until such time as the next Manifestation anulls it. Within the scope of eternity 1000 years is a brief moment. The existence of any doctrinal anomolies are not a moral contradiction of science. Science cannot usurp the perogatives of religion anymore than religion those of science. We are not arguing the nature of the solar system as Gallileo did, but rather, narrowly defined doctrinal issues that have been ruled upon with proper and divinely sanctioned authority. Dr. Cole's second assertion that Abdu'l-Baha desired that within the Cause^E " the freedom of conscience and speech of human beings?" that is self-defined and without reference to the House of Justice. Such a proposition is simply without foundation. Abdu'l-Baha upheld the freedom of religion--the same as the U.S. Constitution does. IOW, one should be able to belong to what ever religion one wants to, and worship as one sees fit, which only makes sense. That does not, however, contradict (his too numerous to site) statements on obedience to the Covenant. The purpose of the Baha'i faith and the Covenant is to develope us as human beings, not to contend, name call, or undermine when we personally think it is a matter conscience. IMHO, if one allows the doubts and flaws of this world to deter them from seeking HIS will over THEIRS no peace or understanding will be found. In answer to Dr. Cole's third point I can but qoute Baha'u'llah, Himself: "In the Kitab-i-Aqdas (Most Holy Book) the following hath been revealed: "Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it." Baha'u'llah says "the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it." It is not for His creatures to test Him, but for Him to test them. Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock" https://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/ End of File, Press RETURN to quit -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Sun Dec 01 10:47:38 1996 Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:45:11 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id XAA22672; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id XAA22670; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id XAA22665; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id XAA07487; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole X-Sender: jrcole@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu To: Susan Maneck cc: StrayMutt@aol.com, talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Terms of Estrangement In-Reply-To: <45247CF20C1@odin.berry.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Well, first of all, the Baha'i theory of human nature is simply incorrect and has been proven so by successive secretaries of the US NSA, each of whom has been initially welcomed as a golden boy bringing new vigor, high standards, and hope to the national center. But after only a few years each is increasingly viewed as authoritarian, thin-skinned, unresponsive, egoistic, and possibly even a bit corrupt. That this happens over and over again suggests to me that the adulation and slack-jawed faith the American community invest in these individuals has a highly corrosive effect over time. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are no exceptions, and Baha'i institutions are exemplars of this principle, not exceptions to it. Second, Susan is absolutely right that incumbency serves in a large community like the US as a de facto form of nomination and perpetual campaigning, which is inherently unfair. What she does not acknowledge is that not only de facto campaigning goes on, but quite deliberate campaigning is engaged in by incumbents, as well. A presently sitting member of the NSA was overheard to remark that he "missed being on the NSA" and would have to go about the country giving talks so as to get back on it. This quite reliable report demonstrates why I suggest an absolute term limit of one 5-year term per NSA member. Even previous service is fairly well-remembered and thus functions as a form of campaigning that can easily be exploited by the ambitious. cheers Juan From - Thu Dec 05 05:55:22 1996 Received: from pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.63.80) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Dec 1996 11:45:39 -0500 Received: from localhost by pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id LAA27651; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:50:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Joshua S. Greenbaum" X-Sender: jsgreen@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu To: @moa.net Subject: Talisman Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am sorry to inform you that due to numerous complaints regarding your behavior, I have been forced to remove you from the Talisman list for a period of six months. ******************************************************************************* Josh Greenbaum "For we are like tree trunks in the snow. Program Assistant In appearance they lie sleekly and a Center for Middle Eastern little push should be enough to set them and North African Studies rolling. No, it can't be done, for they 144 Lane Hall 1290 are firmly wedded to the ground. (313) 764-0350 But see, even that is only an appearance." jsgreen@umich.edu -Franz Kafka From - Thu Dec 05 06:33:08 1996 Message-ID: <32A6B2F4.5808@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:33:08 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Logan" CC: Sandra Fotos , Juan Cole , "Eric D. Pierce" , Talisman , Soc.Religion.Bahai Subject: Re: Serial Tantrums References: <199612050543.XAA02813@mailhost.onramp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Logan wrote: > > >No, no, no.... Don't be pedant.... Cite MY nasty, brutish remarks that > >offend > >your FEELINGS so.... TELL me I'm wrong. I'll consider it. Give me some > >reasoning.... NOT footnotes. > > > >I'm surrounded by books here in my study and have plenty to read already > >though > >I'll read what you write HERE. > > Dear Doctor Cole, > > I formally request that Mr. Glaysher be removed from the list, or at the > very least he be admonished to stop being so personal and contentious. > Everyday I read some unpleasant and rude remarks. Is this really > neccesary? > > Richard C. Logan > nineteen@onramp.net > Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock" > https://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/ My apologies if I've made "some unpleasant and rude remarks." If Mr. Logan would give me more of a sense of exactly what it is he finds to be so, I could respond more precisely. If you all will permit me, I find it unpleasant that vague accusations against me might result in the GAS OVENS! I mean really, come on! The post of my cited above appears to me to be quite innocuous. How that could be grounds for ostracism is beyond me. Okay. I'll try, sincerely, to be nicer.... Give me chance. Heh, isn't this the newsgroup that has had on it so much about FREE SPEECH and CONSCIENCE lately? (How humiliating, having to beg for one's life.) -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Thu Dec 05 06:49:30 1996 Message-ID: <32A6B6CA.490C@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:49:30 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juan R Cole CC: @MOA.net Subject: FATWA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 jsgreen is banishing me on the basis of "numerous complaints"! Is that all it takes? What about FREE SPEECH and individual CONSCIENCE? Can you plead for my life? Don't let them send me to the gas chambers! The gulag! Seriously, this is a serious issue.... As a published writer and poet, I find it quite disturbing.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Fri Dec 06 14:50:35 1996 Message-ID: <32A87892.7EAA@moa.net> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 14:48:34 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Quanta Dawn-Light CC: talisman@umich.edu, irfan@umich.edu Subject: Re: Please stop! References: <1B0C93A57B9@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Quanta Dawn-Light wrote: > > Dear beloved Frederick, > > You are more loved than you realize! You are the beloved > universal child of Father Cosmos and Mother Earth. > You contain many of hearts within you who do truly love you. > Stop hurting yourself. Please! Please! Please! > > love, > q. > > *************************************** > Life is a pattern of relationships (*_*) Well, dear friend (may I call you that?), I understand what you are saying.... Alas, here, in the Siberian taiga, I fear you blame the victim. Can you consider that? No one else has. I hope your good heart will permit you to for at least one moment.... Yes, not a complete victim. (Oh the bitter ironies of life, the soul a tangled skein.) I apologize, sincerely, dearest, for any untoward harm I might have done. And dearest Sonia, I will watch for you outside the prison walls! -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Fri Dec 06 15:47:22 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.175) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 06 Dec 1996 15:34:27 -0500 Message-ID: <32A8841C.2CFB@moa.net> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 15:37:48 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: @moa.net CC: @MOA.net Subject: All Messages to SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI & Talisman Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="------------3E69366EFD" Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3E69366EFD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Message-ID: <3282572E.2005@moa.net> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:39:58 -0500 From: <@moa.net> Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Friend, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > I am returningthis to you for editting. I cannot allow the blanket > statements: I refuse to edit my post in any way whatsoever. Your role as a moderator is not to be a fascist and stunt the serious exchange of ideas. Incidentally, "editting" is spelt with one "t." > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > especially in this regard. > > and > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > and obedience. > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > general or backed up by fact. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-1.ouhub.moa.net > > From: <@moa.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 > > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 11:08:44 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 87 > > Message-ID: <3282098C.31E@moa.net> > > References: <55sp6p$q76@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > hasn't? > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > especially in this regard. > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > with. > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > full of evil." > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > and obedience. > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:49:15 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.5.102]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id OAA22751; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:54:18 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id OAA10843; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:54:18 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611072154.OAA10843@primenet.com> Subject: Re: statement of principles part 1 To: @moa.net () Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:54:17 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3282572E.2005@moa.net> from "" at Nov 7, 96 04:39:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 You write: > > Dear Friend, > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > I am returningthis to you for editting. I cannot allow the blanket > > statements: > > I refuse to edit my post in any way whatsoever. Your role as a moderator > is not to be a fascist and stunt the serious exchange of ideas. > Incidentally, "editting" is spelt with one "t." > I am sorry, but as submitted, your post does not meet the charter of the newsgroup. It contains blanket statements about a group of people when that statement can not possibly be applied accurately to all in that group. It is therefore stereotypical and could be offensive to those in that group. The charter for the newsgroup clearly disallows this type of post. If you would like to support your contention by clearly identifying it as your opinion and supplying some facts to support it or qualifying it in a meaningful way, I would be happy to post your remarks. Thank you for expressing your concern, Dick Detweiler, co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 10:33:02 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA04304; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:38:05 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id IAA03876; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:38:04 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net () Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:38:03 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32847FF3.7532@moa.net> from "" at Nov 9, 96 07:58:27 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, Please reformat and delete personal reference to moderators and blanket attacks against groups and I would be happy to post your remarks, Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:58:27 -0500 > From: <@moa.net> > Organization: > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > I am returningthis to you for editting. [sic] I cannot allow the blanket > > statements: > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > especially in this regard. > > > > and > > > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > and obedience. > > > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > > general or backed up by fact. > > > > Thank you for participating, > > > > Dick Detweiler > > rdetweil@primenet.com > > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > > hasn't? > > > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent evidence of this in my experience is Richard C. Detweiler's censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > > full of evil." > > > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, doesn't exactly > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > > > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:18:55 -0500 Message-ID: <328504DC.4551@moa.net> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:25:32 -0500 From: <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > Please reformat and delete personal reference to moderators and > blanket attacks against groups and I would be happy to post > your remarks, > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com Dear Richard: Let me make sure I understand this: Moderators, like Hitler and other fascists, are above all criticism. The Kitab-i-Oppression says so. I spelled out "SOME" though I believe the context, as well as reason, implies it. > > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:58:27 -0500 > > From: <@moa.net> > > Organization: > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > > References: <199611071911.MAA13396@primenet.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > > > I am returningthis to you for editting. [sic] I cannot allow the blanket > > > statements: > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > > especially in this regard. > > > > > > and > > > > > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that that such cultures as that > > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > > and obedience. > > > > > > to be postedi to the newsgroup. As stated with no supporting information, > > > these statements are unfair stereotypes which could cause a lot of heat with > > > no new light. :-) Please either strike them or edit them to make them more > > > general or backed up by fact. > > > > > > Thank you for participating, > > > > > > Dick Detweiler > > > rdetweil@primenet.com > > > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > > > > > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > > > > > Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > > > > > doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > > > > > when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > > > > > ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > > > > > war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > > > > > unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > > > > > she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > > > > > sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > > > > > time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > > > > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > > > > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > > > > hasn't? > > > > > > > > > As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > > > individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > > > churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > > > "Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > > > > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > > > > > authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > > > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > > > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > > > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > > > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > > > > the Iranian Baha'i influence upon the understanding of its teachings, > > > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent evidence of this in my experience is Richard C. Detweiler's censoring > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > > > > > > If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > > > > > for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > > > > > than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > > > > > those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > > > > > effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > > > > > worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > > > > > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > > > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > > > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > > > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > > > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > > > > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > > > > full of evil." > > > > > > > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > > > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > > > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > > > > > > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > > > > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > > > > > > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > > > > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > > > > >are founded on such principles? > > > > > > > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > > > > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > > > > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > > > > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > > > > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > > > > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, doesn't > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan, USA > > > > > > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:58:48 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr01.primenet.com [206.165.5.101]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id QAA11251; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:03:52 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA00271; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:03:51 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611092303.QAA00271@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net () Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:03:50 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <328504DC.4551@moa.net> from "" at Nov 9, 96 05:25:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, I am sorry if you have a problem with moderated newsgroups. But if you would like to take part in the discussion on this groups, you need to make sure your submittals meet the charter of the group. I am enclosing a copy of it for your reference. Please keep it in mind while reviewing the post in question and my comments. Again, when it is free of personal attacks and negative comments about a whole group of people which could find them offensive, I would be happy to post it. My reformatting request had to do with getting rid of the '>'s that have build up over the course of our exchange. Let me also reiterate that negative comments about the Faith are fine on the newsgroup as long as they meet the charter. If you would like to make a point that Iranian culture tends towards orthodoxy and that that may impact the way some individuals act, that's alright. Just make sure the comments meet the charter. If you want to say Baha'is are a bunch of uptight, repressed, narrow-minded, religiously-conned, non-intellectual, misguided saps, just make sure you say it with a smile on your face, OK? And one more thing, fascists like me like honey a lot better than vinegar. If you take my meaning... Your jack-booted, brown-shirted moderator friend, Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com CHARTER FOR THE SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI NEWSGROUP ============================================== PURPOSE The newsgroup will act as a non-threatening forum for discussing and sharing information about the tenets, history, and texts of the Baha'i Faith. Prior to its formation there was a good amount of traffic on this topic in other newsgroups; this group provides a "single point of contact" for such discussion. Examples of posts that fall within the group's scope are: * The Baha'i Faith's relation to other religions * Relevance of Baha'i principles to current world events/problems * Analysis of particular scriptural passages or themes * General Q & A MODERATOR POLICIES o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup. o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished, unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah." o Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a book reference) may also be rejected. o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist. o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise ratio. --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:00:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3285C57D.2927@moa.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:07:25 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611092303.QAA00271@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > I am sorry if you have a problem with moderated newsgroups. "Problem" is a derogatory characterization of my position. What I disaprove of is CENSORED newsgroups. In my last posting, I apparently hurt your feelings. But if > you would like to take part in the discussion on this groups, you need > to make sure your submittals meet the charter of the group. I am > enclosing a copy of it for your reference. Please keep it in mind > while reviewing the post in question and my comments. Again, when > it is free of personal attacks [you?] and negative comments about a whole > group of people which could find them offensive, [I qualified the obvious, i.e., what ought to go without saying.] I would be happy > to post it. My reformatting request had to do with getting rid of > the '>'s that have build up over the course of our exchange. I'm resending it then. > > Let me also reiterate that negative comments about the Faith are fine > on the newsgroup as long as they meet the charter. If you would like > to make a point that Iranian culture tends towards orthodoxy and that > that may impact the way some individuals act, that's alright. [sic] Just > make sure the comments meet the charter. [And God has enlightened you to make the decision?] If you want to say Baha'is > are a bunch of uptight, repressed, narrow-minded, religiously-conned, > non-intellectual, misguided saps, just make sure you say it with a > smile on your face, OK? This, Richard, is a generalization, one apparently you find permissible. I, however, will grant you what you refuse to grant me: The statement of an opinion without endless, absurd qualifications, IMHOs, etc. > > And one more thing, fascists like me like honey a lot better than > vinegar. If you take my meaning... > You're abusing your power. All fascists do/did. Threats stultify the exchange of ideas as much as censorship. > Your jack-booted, brown-shirted moderator friend, You're trying to turn into a joke a very serious issue. > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com > > CHARTER FOR THE SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI NEWSGROUP > ============================================== I don't disagree with any of this nor did my original post. > > > PURPOSE > > The newsgroup will act as a non-threatening forum for discussing and > sharing information about the tenets, history, and texts of the Baha'i > Faith. Prior to its formation there was a good amount of traffic on > this topic in other newsgroups; this group provides a "single point of > contact" for such discussion. > > Examples of posts that fall within the group's scope are: > > * The Baha'i Faith's relation to other religions > * Relevance of Baha'i principles to current world events/problems > * Analysis of particular scriptural passages or themes > * General Q & A > > > MODERATOR POLICIES > > o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a > decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet > respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks > (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory > attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use > offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only > the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. > > o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i > Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual > Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in > determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup. > > o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished, > unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should > paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib > Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah." > > o Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority > outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This > does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate > the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. > > o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a > book reference) may also be rejected. > > o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who > can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude > anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist. > > o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. > The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying > remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise > ratio. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 10:20:36 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr09.primenet.com [206.165.5.109]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA25365; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:25:39 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id IAA23650; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:25:38 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:25:37 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3285CAB3.45FE@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 10, 96 07:29:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to the newsgroup: > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] and > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > value the free exchange of ideas.] Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai rdetweil@primenet.com > From @moa.net Sun Nov 10 05:28:08 1996 > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id FAA29406 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:28:07 -0700 (MST) > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:23:00 -0500 > Message-ID: <3285CAB3.45FE@moa.net> > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:29:39 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: rdetweil@primenet.com > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> <328504DC.4551@moa.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > >Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > >Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > >doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > >when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > >ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > >war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > >unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > >she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > >sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > >time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > hasn't? > > >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > >Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > >authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > the Iranian Baha'i influence [SOME] upon the understanding of its teachings, > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > >If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > >for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > >than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > >those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > >effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > >worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > with. > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > full of evil." > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > >are founded on such principles? > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: rdetweil@primenet.com > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611091538.IAA03876@primenet.com> <328504DC.4551@moa.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > >Personally, over the years I've been incredibly disillusioned with the Bahai > >Community. I was brainwashed to believe it meant a lot of things it > >doesn't. To, illustrate, I can still remember going to a youth deepening > >when I was 17 and hearing this highly respected fiery lipped ex-radical > >ominously railing to us guys about "locker room talk" --- basically in her > >war like ways she was trying to instill a sense of shame for thinking > >unchaste thoughts ---- which was good in a sense ---- but believe me, the way > >she worded herself was absolute condescending nonsense. She cleverly made it > >sound like it was a terrible crime to get horny. --- The point being, at the > >time, being a na ve kid, I took her way too seriously. > > Karl, people are evil and twist and debase every political and religious form to > their own purposes. I've witnessed this same kind of thing in the Baha'i Faith > many, many times. Who, if they have even a modicum of honesty and perspicacity, > hasn't? > > >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > Many people are all too willing to ASSUME these roles--through election or > otherwise makes little difference. Tainted wine in new vessels. > > >Moreover, it is precisely this sense of distrust for people in an > >authoritative position such as priests, that in my opinion, strikes a nerve > > in America's character. ---- If one needs good tactics for mass enrollments > > in the U.S., my suggestion is that we start with those aspects of the Faith > > that appeal to those who have good reasons to distrust authority. After all, > > isn't this distrust a tradition in this country? > > It seems to me the growth of the Faith has been perhaps hopelessly stunted by > the Iranian Baha'i influence [SOME] upon the understanding of its teachings, > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > >If one needs a reason to see why its so easy for people not to be Bahais, or > >for that matter, why it's so easy to disobey the Laws of God, look no further > >than members of the influential Bahai Community playing surrogate priests to > >those foolish enough to play surrogate parish ----- Which has the inevitable > >effect of denying what's a part of life: what's worth respecting, what's > >worth being ashamed of, and what's worth forgiving. > > You, sir, have an Antinomian mind; you should OBEY!!!! > > > These roles have this effect because sooner or later a parish will wonder if > > the priest is worth putting on a pedestal. As such, it will eventually see > > the natural flaws in his character and not take a damn thing he says > > seriously. Whereas with independent investigation of truth, which > > Baha'u'llah so brilliantly condones, there are no flaws to be disillusioned > > with. > > In Young Goodman Brown, Hawthorne perceived it long ago: "Evil is the Nature > of Mankind." I also recall Ecclessiates: "The heart of the sons of men is > full of evil." > > > If one needs a good subject for a fireside or a deepening, I strongly > > recommend we deepen each other on whatever it takes to psychologically break > > whatever it is that compels us to play such roles. > > In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha says of evil, it "continues and endures." > Not at all an upbeat modern concept full of psychological hope. > > >"I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of Tyranny against the minds > >of man." - Thomas Jefferson > > >Maybe that's why the U.S. is the cradle of the Faith. What other countries > >are founded on such principles? > > You make me think of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "I never expect > to see a perfect thing from imperfect man." An exceedingly Western, Christian, > American notion, though all the great religions have a sense of the limitations > and modest possibilities of human material. One that such cultures as that > of Iran blithely ignore in their futile, primitive, brutal search for perfection > and obedience. [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Message-ID: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:34:47 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community References: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on > this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to > the newsgroup: > These do not constitute personal attacks but exposures of your undue interference in the content on my postings. I can understand you would prefer no one else should know about the issue. In my opinion, you're violating my constitutional freedom as an American citizen and my privilege as a Baha'i to express my conscience candidly. In both of these passages, I am taking issue with the heavy-handed editorial practice that you seem to believe is justifiable. I trust the spark of truth enough to manifest itself to allow others to speak their minds. That, to me, is a Baha'i principle, sorely neglected in your handling of my post. I believe it is legitimate use of the newsgroup to discuss the moderators' procedures for manipulating discussion. > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > and > > > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body > of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. > Your request to strike these is so as not to draw attention to your flawed handling of my posting. You're now merely trying to protect yourself from the possible censure you have earned. I'm not out to get YOU. Don't get paranoid. It's policy that permits ANY moderator to do what you have that concerns me. I believe that policy, in context, is worthy of discussion, indeed, essential. Your request to include my parenthetical comments constitutes another request to obscure further the real issue. Your attempt to protect yourself at the cost of silencing me. > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > rdetweil@primenet.com > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:48:51 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr05.primenet.com [206.165.5.105]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id GAA23233; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:53:55 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id GAA06981; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:53:54 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611111353.GAA06981@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:53:53 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 11, 96 07:34:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Frederick, The policy of this newsgroup is not to allow offensive material. Your post contains two instances where you make blanket statements about Iranians which many could view as prejudgemental and offensive. You have also insisted on including attacks on the moderator, these are not allowed as they are attacks on an individual. These comments must be tempered - moderated if you will. The purpose of this group is to share ideas and the moderators work to make sure that ideas and not people are the focus of discussion. I am sorry but that is all there is to it. I have handed off moderation duty to the next moderator in the cycle as Sunday was my last day. Please direct any further comments to the address srb-mods@bcca.org. If you have problems with these policies as a Baha'i, I suggest you take it up with a Local Spiritual Assembly or Auxiliary Board member as well. Thanks again for expressing your concerns, Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > From @moa.net Mon Nov 11 05:33:16 1996 > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id FAA04941 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:33:14 -0700 (MST) > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.45) by atlas.moa.net > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:28:07 -0500 > Message-ID: <32871D67.A62@moa.net> > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:34:47 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Bahai Community > References: <199611101525.IAA23650@primenet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The following comments - as personal attacks which have no place on > > this newsgroup - need to be removed before this will be submitted to > > the newsgroup: > > > > These do not constitute personal attacks but exposures of your undue interference > in the content on my postings. I can understand you would prefer no one else > should know about the issue. In my opinion, you're violating my constitutional > freedom as an American citizen and my privilege as a Baha'i to express my > conscience candidly. In both of these passages, I am taking issue with the > heavy-handed editorial practice that you seem to believe is justifiable. I trust > the spark of truth enough to manifest itself to allow others to speak their minds. > That, to me, is a Baha'i principle, sorely neglected in your handling of my post. > I believe it is legitimate use of the newsgroup to discuss the moderators' > procedures for manipulating discussion. > > > > > especially in this regard. [At the insistence of the "moderator," the best recent > > > evidence of this in my experience is the censoring of this posting > > > the first time I submitted it. As a pre-Reformation, or non-Reformation culture, Iran > > > has the typical tendency to disallow the free exchange of opinion. IMHO, this cultural > > > predilection is shared by SOME Iranian Baha'is. How could it not be?] > > > > and > > > > > [Once again forced by the CENSOR, I apparently need to point outthat > > > Iran (Baha'u'llah seems to have noticed this), as a culture, does not > > > value the free exchange of ideas.] > > > > Strike these and incorporate your parenthetical comments into the main body > > of your post and I would be happy to post this to the newsgroup. > > > > Your request to strike these is so as not to draw attention to your flawed > handling of my posting. You're now merely trying to protect yourself from > the possible censure you have earned. I'm not out to get YOU. Don't get > paranoid. It's policy that permits ANY moderator to do what you have that > concerns me. I believe that policy, in context, is worthy of discussion, > indeed, essential. > > Your request to include my parenthetical comments constitutes another request > to obscure further the real issue. Your attempt to protect yourself at the > cost of silencing me. > > > > Dick Detweiler > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > rdetweil@primenet.com > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:03:13 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA10562; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:07:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611102107.PAA10562@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: John Haukness , @moa.net Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:19:43 -0600 Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup generally strives for. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > John Haukness wrote: > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > I made no such suggestion. > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still is necessary. > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like among church against church and state against state, Likewise being ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New World Order state. All the best! > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from gaston.tenet.edu (198.213.2.8) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:08:21 -0500 Received: (from haukness@localhost) by gaston.tenet.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA07867; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:03:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:03:34 -0600 (CST) From: John Haukness To: Rick Boatright cc: @moa.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought In-Reply-To: <199611102107.PAA10562@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Rick: After reviewing my message I find my tone and objectivity, is quite more temperate and reserved than many other posts. I find soc.religion's moderating policy to lean towards the left ideology. On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Rick Boatright wrote: > Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) > > I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message > he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, > perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you > both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the > newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted > context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup > generally strives for. > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) > From: John Haukness > To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> > Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > John Haukness wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. > > And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we > as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular > behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the > secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > > > > I made no such suggestion. > > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation > of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still > is necessary. > > > > > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of > church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for > the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like > among church against church and state against state, Likewise being > ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 > years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now > is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like > to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one > can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious > society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly > wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married > interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate > manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization > one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look > at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, > and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation > level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of > Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New > World Order state. > All the best! > > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > > > > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.44) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:21:48 -0500 Message-ID: <3289BEEC.27DF@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:28:28 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Haukness CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Another excellent example, apparently, of the abuse of your laughable little powers as a "moderator." You're interfering too much in the CONTENT of the message. John Haukness wrote: > > Dear Rick: After reviewing my message I find my tone and objectivity, is > quite more temperate and reserved than many other posts. I find > soc.religion's moderating policy to lean towards the left ideology. > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > Dear John, (and copied to Frederick) > > > > I have already asked Frederick to decrease the quote in the message > > he sent to the newsgroup and to which you are replying. Could we, > > perhaps let you two continue this in private email, or perhaps you > > both would like to prepare new summeries of your positions for the > > newsgroup? These messages with their extremely lenthy quoted > > context violate the signal-to-noise ratio that the newsgroup > > generally strives for. > > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:18:02 -0600 (CST) > > From: John Haukness > > To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> > > Cc: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Subject: Re: Reviewing and Freedom of Speech and Thought > > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > John Haukness wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Friends: One can see me as anti-whatever they want. The writings of > > > > the Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church > > > > and state is based on fear and will fade away. > > > > > > It's based on fear of the harsh realities of historical experience--often > > > bloody. The Guardian is more nuanced. > > > > And now we live in the Day that will not be followed by nite! Also, we > > as much historical episodes of bood baths as a result of secular > > behaviors so do you want also to separate the secular from the > > secular based on using the same logic? have> > As far as equating > > > > Religion and state as one, being common anti intellectual sentiment, I am > > > > familiar with a long list of Baha'i's arguing this, many who have > > > > published far more than I have- I wish people would start studying Shoghi > > > > Effendi with an open mind, and Abdul Baha's statements on education. > > > > > > > > Of course my friends William and John Hatcher have put this issue to > > > > rest, safe ground, as with their publishing record, it is hard to call > > > > them anti-intellectual. From Shoghi Effendi: "As the Baha'i > > > > Administrative Order rapidly expands throughout the world it behooves > > > > everyone associated with it to familiarize himself with its principles > > > > to understand its import and to put its precepts into practice. The > > > > divinely ordained institutions of the Local Spriityal Assembly operates > > > > at the first levels of human society and is the basic administrative unit > > > > of Bahaullah's World Order." So how are you going to separate religion > > > > from Bahaullah's World Order, an Order, Bahaullah has placed the state in? > > > > > > > > > > I made no such suggestion. > > > The suggestion of your post was that Western secularism's separation > > of church and state was good, I assummed you were applying that it still > > is necessary. > > > > > > > > > Well, John, you sure know how to ignore unpleasant facts and dispense with > > > 400 years of religious and social history triumphantly. > > > As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that the separation of > > church and state have provided the security you are attributing, for > > the>past 400 years there are as many wars, forced famines and the like > > among church against church and state against state, Likewise being > > ignored are all the successful ventures of cooperation the past 400 > > years of religion and state; but regardless, that was then and now > > is now. What stikes me, is that with keen insight, (I would shure like > > to hear from the readers who already have noticed the following) one > > can begin to see the faint glimmers, that secular society and religious > > society are beginning to come upon, what the Hatcher's so elequantly > > wrote about, that religion is inseparable from science, they are married > > interwoven in the foundation. (I am not saying there are not appropriate > > manmade separations, in man's need for efficiency and specialization > > one needs to make artificial separations all the time, but if you look > > at Shoghi Effendi's writings on the Assemblies and Houses of Justice, > > and Abdul Baha's on schools, you can clearly see, that at the foundation > > level, religion and state are complimentary, and that the Local House of > > Justice, and Baha'i School are the foundation institutions of the New > > World Order state. > > All the best! > > > > > > > Your post seems to me to be ladened with the anti-intellectualism that > > > > > has become characteristic of the thinking of many Baha'is. Your > > > > > conclusions don't appear to me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. > > > > > > > > > > Given modern religious history, since the 1600s really, Western > > > > > secularism has quite rightly that the separation of religion from > > > > > the state is in everyone's best interest. > > > > > > > > > > The Baha'i Faith has yet sufficiently to prove otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:08:59 -0500 Received: from RICK (Port21.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.31]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA28513 for <@moa.net>; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:13:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:14:01 -0600 Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience in working with the moderators on this. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai --------------3E69366EFD Message-ID: <3289BE59.6BA7@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:26:01 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! References: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience > in working with the moderators on this. > No patience at all. You and your cohorts are heavy-handed, self-righeteous fascists who apparently believe God has touched you with holy wisdom. I feel nothing but contempt for Baha'is like you. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.44) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:19:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3289BE59.6BA7@moa.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:26:01 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned -- THANK YOU! References: <199611121613.KAA28513@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Thanks. That was just posted to the net. I appriciate your patience > in working with the moderators on this. > No patience at all. You and your cohorts are heavy-handed, self-righeteous fascists who apparently believe God has touched you with holy wisdom. I feel nothing but contempt for Baha'is like you. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:40:51 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port75.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.86]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA08025; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611171545.JAA08025@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@MOA.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:57:52 -0600 Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with us Frederick. I really appriciate it. Rick Boatright > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > To: mac13@teleport.com > Cc: @MOA.net > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > >> [clip] > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > > actions and > > systems imposed upon them from above. > > > > With all due respect, with what I am slowly learning about > > the Baha'i Faith, much authority is dervied from an > > hierarchy commencing at a very local level and then > > ascending. > > > > I don't believe your local level metaphor, if you will, here quite fits. > The UHJ is not a local institution.... It's members are distant and > unknown to most local Baha'is. > > [clip] > > > Perhaps those people who have long held within their grasp > > the reins of the people governed and whose words were so > > lofty and whose deeds were so shameful will wonder if a > > system based on authority and heirarchy ascending from the > > local level has any chance to work, given the elements with > > which it is composed. > > "The elements with which it is composed": Nice phrase. Echoes Shoghi Effendi > somewhere or other doesn't? This is the crux of my thinking. > > [clip] > > > > > You state that > > "Shoghi Effendi end The Promised Day is Come with the > > word "power." He obviously spent his life developing a > > system based on hierarchy and authority. To call these > > things "old world" is inaccurate. To observe > > that power can be abused in the Baha'i Faith is not "old > > world." > > > > I must disagree with you that my personal opinion is that > > Shoghi Effendi labored those years to implement the > > structure set forth by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha. > > Of course I agree with you here by and large. However, that structure was none > too detailed.... Shoghi Effendi's study at Oxford of political philosophy > provided more than a little useful background knowledge. Obvious observation, > if you will, for anyone who's actually studied political philosophy. > > He > > found ways to give it expression that did NOT entail > > the abuse of "hierarchy and authority" on a descending > > mode being imposed upon many... my personal opinion is that > > he found ways to implement a program to ensure that > > authority derived from the Institutions and the Institutions > > dervied authority initially from local levels... > > Perhaps you're right. Give concrete examples. > > that is > > not "Old World Order". > > What are those "ways"? Can you list them? I would find specific examples of them > in practical application interesting.... > > > I am sorry that one would be incredibly disillusioned with > > the Baha'i Community. It is made up of humans, lots and > > lots of humans who, as I have mentioned before, have come > > with much baggage from the system in which many have lived > > for years. They are trying: they are not isolating as some > > organizations might... fearing contamination from an outside > > world. > > You really don't address here the original issue from the person who wrote > "incredibly disillusioned with the Baha'i Community." That wasn't me. Human? > That's my point. You rush past it too quickly to my mind. > > "Isolating"? Baha'i communities, as I have experienced them for twenty years, > often seem extremely isolated and isolating.... I have often wondered why. > Any ideas? > > > Thanks for "listening" to my comments. > > Good luck, and take care. > > > > ---Dennis > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: <32905ECF.5790@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:04:15 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611171545.JAA08025@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > Rick Boatright > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > To: mac13@teleport.com > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > > >> [clip] > > > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > [cut] -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:34:58 -0500 Received: from RICK (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA16177; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:39:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611181639.KAA16177@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:40:09 -0600 Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, I was trying to say two unrelated things. First, that was a really nice message. Well thought, cohesive, good writing, I was trying to give you a compliment. Second, I was expressing my gratitude that the conflict between you and the moderators a couple of weeks ago did not result in your leaving the newsgroup. I appriciate your continued participation. Rick Boatright > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:04:15 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > Cc: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > > > Rick Boatright > > > > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:10:16 -0500 > > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > > To: mac13@teleport.com > > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > > > mac13@teleport.com wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <"Yu8EZB.A.s9F.YwJjy"@bounty>, > > > > Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> wrote: > > > > >Cheshmak A Farhoumand wrote: > > > > >> [clip] > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, the impression I have of previous > > > > systems is a system of "hierarchy and > > > > >authority that flows downward, entrapping many people into > > > > [cut] > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:28:51 -0500 Message-ID: <32919B88.7907@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:35:36 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611181639.KAA16177@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > I was trying to say two unrelated things. > > First, that was a really nice message. Well thought, cohesive, good > writing, I was trying to give you a compliment. > I don't need nor want your unsolicted editorial comments BIG BROTHER. I want the freedom to speak the conscience God has given me and the freedom to be responded to by OTHERS' unconstrained consciences. Stay out of the way. > Second, I was expressing my gratitude that the conflict between you > and the moderators a couple of weeks ago did not result in your > leaving the newsgroup. I appriciate your continued participation. > I feel nothing but contempt for the way you and Richard Detweiler have handled my postings. Make no mistake in that regard. Neither one of you, or anybody, has the prescience to exercise such power and control over others' consciences. The abuse of your power is a proper subject for discussion on the newsgroup. > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > > Really nice message. Good work. Thanks for hanging in there with > > > us Frederick. I really appriciate it. > > > > > > Rick Boatright > > > > > > > Frankly, I don't know what you mean here. > > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:06:28 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id GAA23652; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:08:59 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:21 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 78 Message-ID: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: Anne Furlong CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Anne Furlong wrote: > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > whatsoever. "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... [clip] > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. then the > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're too quick to leap over that fact for me. We are > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > reason for our failure to love? > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community or individuals under that Tyranny? > All the best, > > Anne Furlong > St John's Newfoundland Canada -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.55) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:24 -0500 Message-ID: <329AD35D.6E67@moa.net> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:24:13 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: srb-mods@bcca.org CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Anne Furlong wrote: > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > whatsoever. "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... [clip] > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. then the > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're too quick to leap over that fact for me. We are > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > reason for our failure to love? > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community or individuals under that Tyranny? > All the best, > > Anne Furlong > St John's Newfoundland Canada -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:29:07 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id HAA10366; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:34:11 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id HAA23362; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:34:11 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611191434.HAA23362@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:34:10 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 19, 96 05:44:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. This newsgroup, however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 68 > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > To: Sian Smith > CC: @MOA.net > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > >> > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > >> > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > another person). > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > reads.... It that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > is it? > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > > > Loving greetings > > > > Sian Smith > > Wellington > > New Zealand > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:46:37 -0500 Message-ID: <32930D52.2FC8@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:53:22 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611191434.HAA23362@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the > moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, > it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to > the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. > > If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest > news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first > is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. This newsgroup, > however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere > of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > I'm not at all surprised Richardt.... Fascists and totalitarians have always sought to conceal and manipulate reality. > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 68 > > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Sian Smith > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > >> > > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > > another person). > > > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > > reads.... It that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > > is it? > > > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > > Let's not make waves.... Let's build UNITY! > > > > > Loving greetings > > > > > > Sian Smith > > > Wellington > > > New Zealand > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.66) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:20:19 -0500 Message-ID: <32932348.5E7E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:27:04 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611191434.HAA23362@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the > moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, > it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to > the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. > False. They go to the heart of the matter, i.e., how it functions. > If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest > news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first > is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. "Vent your frustrations" is in the same category as my "Utterly naive." I don't seek to deprive you of your conscience that apparently believes that. You may say what you wish. It won't hurt my little feelings. I believe you're again manipulating discussion in a dictatorial, oppressive manner unjustified by anything in the Baha'i Writings which you apparently cloak your shameless deeds in. This newsgroup, > however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere > of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. > The abuse of the conscience of a member of the Baha'i Faith and, apparently regular practice of distortion and censorship is not a suitable topic? I can understand why you wouldn't wish to have anyone else know.... > Thank you for participating, > I'm not participating at all. You are self-righteous depriving me of that. You are also depriving others of hearing or disagreeing with my opinions. > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 68 > > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Sian Smith > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > >> > > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > > another person). > > > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > > reads.... If that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > > is it? > > > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > > Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > > > > > Loving greetings > > > > > > Sian Smith > > > Wellington > > > New Zealand > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > = End submitted post =========================== YOU DEAR CENSORS have shown your true colors once again. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:38:03 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id HAA10563; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:43:08 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id HAA24131; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:43:08 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611191443.HAA24131@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:43:07 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 19, 96 06:10:21 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I ask that you strike the comment "utterly naive" as an attack on the previous poster. If you would like to say you disagree, that would be acceptable. Also, your sarcastic comments in the following paragraph: > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. If you would turn this into a meaningful criticism based on actual events than the readership could evaluate and enter into a dialog with you on these events. Again, let me make it clear that if you have a grievance with the Faith, you are free to air it here, but it must be the facts and your reasons for the grievance presented and not belittling insults, broad stereotypes, and blatant sarcasm. Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@moa.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:21 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 78 > Message-ID: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > To: Anne Furlong > CC: @moa.net > > Anne Furlong wrote: > > > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > > whatsoever. > > "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... > > [clip] > > > > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > > > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, > > In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. > > then the > > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". > > What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're > too quick to leap over that fact for me. > > We are > > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > > reason for our failure to love? > > > > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > > > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > > > > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, > turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community > or individuals under that Tyranny? > > > All the best, > > > > Anne Furlong > > St John's Newfoundland Canada > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.66) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:25:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3293247F.2340@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:32:15 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611191443.HAA24131@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Further response-- Your characterization of my comments as sarcastic is ludicrous. One may not be sarcastic in the Baha'i Faith? And you are too determine is toooooo SARCASTIC? Oh God, what a farce! Since you apparently don't understand the passage in question, I'm supposed to water in down for YOUR ignorance! I'm talking about the totalitarianism of the SOVIET UNION which you dangerously come close to. Again, I request that you post my message or pass it on to someone else who is not as fanatical as you. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > I ask that you strike the comment "utterly naive" as an attack > on the previous poster. If you would like to say you disagree, > that would be acceptable. > > Also, your sarcastic comments in the following paragraph: > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > > If you would turn this into a meaningful criticism based on actual events > than the readership could evaluate and enter into a dialog with you on these > events. > > Again, let me make it clear that if you have a grievance with the Faith, > you are free to air it here, but it must be the facts and your reasons for > the grievance presented and not belittling insults, broad stereotypes, and > blatant sarcasm. > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:21 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 78 > > Message-ID: <3291959D.7D9C@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qoi9$rmd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Anne Furlong > > CC: @moa.net > > > > Anne Furlong wrote: > > > > > > The reference to power probably helps poinpoint the difficulty some of > > > the friends have here. The point is that in this Faith, for the first > > > time in religious history, power and authority have been intentionally > > > and effectively severed. The authority to make decisions, to legislate, > > > to guide, rests with the elected institutions of the Faith. However, > > > these institutions - and the individuals who make them up - have no power > > > whatsoever. > > > > "No power whatsoever": Utterly naive.... > > > > [clip] > > > > > > > > Why do people become disillusioned with the community? with individuals? > > > Well, we all know people who, by force of personality, or because of > > > defects of character and personality, receive, demand, or desire > > > acquiescence from other individuals. But note: if such people do in fact > > > poison a community, who ultimately must take the responsibility? Power > > > is not theirs to command: it is ceded to them by those who have not the > > > wisdom or the courage to recognise that what is being asked is both > > > contrary to the Faith, and ultimately impossible to give. > > > > > > > Excellent point. A profound moral problem arises here. How can the individual > > maintain the moral strength of character to resist abuse and manipulation when > > power can be wielded in such a way as to undermine that very ability? To > > discredit it. Ban it. Brand it as outlaw, heretic, disruptive, anti-social, > > working against the realization, e.g., of the communist Kingdom of Freedom. > > > > > Yes, impossible: for since in the Administrative order which is > > > Baha'u'llah's gift to the world, power and authority are divided, > > > > In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not convinced. > > > > then the > > > efforts of a few misguided individuals to bring power and authority > > > together in their own persons; or to build up factions; or to do anything, > > > in fact, which is contravenes the spirit and the reality of the Covenant, > > > are doomed to failure. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the ocean of the Covenant > > > will surge and surge until it casts the bodies of the (spiritually) dead > > > onto the shore. We cannot ultimately harm the progress of the Cause, but > > > can cut ourselves off from the abundant share of the blessings which > > > obedience to the Covenant brings to us. > > > > > > If we are disillusioned with the community we live in, then our response > > > will either add to the problem or be the start of its eradication. The > > > whole purpose of consultation is to allow the individual to exercise > > > responsibility - his power - within the "unit of civilization". > > > > What I am saying is that there are situations when it is not allowed. You're > > too quick to leap over that fact for me. > > > > We are > > > all going to be responsible for our actions to Baha'u'llah when we pass > > > from this earth; are we going to plead the immaturity of others as the > > > reason for our failure to love? > > > > > > > Your dragging "love" into this confuses the issue. > > > > > Baha'u'llah did more than despise tyranny; in his Administrative Order, > > > He, as the Divine Physician, prescribed the effective and permanent remedy. > > > > > > > The point from the original post was in regard to the abuse of the remedy, > > turning it into a cheap medicine show elixir. What then of the community > > or individuals under that Tyranny? > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Anne Furlong > > > St John's Newfoundland Canada > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:44:21 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id JAA23456; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:44:28 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id JAA14736; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:44:27 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611201644.JAA14736@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:44:26 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3293247F.2340@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 20, 96 10:32:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Frederick Glaysher writes: > > Further response-- Your characterization of my comments as sarcastic > is ludicrous. One may not be sarcastic in the Baha'i Faith? And you > are too determine is toooooo SARCASTIC? Oh God, what a farce! > > Since you apparently don't understand the passage in question, I'm > supposed to water in down for YOUR ignorance! I'm talking about the > totalitarianism of the SOVIET UNION which you dangerously come close > to. > > Again, I request that you post my message or pass it on to someone > else who is not as fanatical as you. > Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct some misunderstandings you have about the newsgroup soc.religion.bahai. It appears you have the impression that the newsgroup has some kind of official standing within the Baha'i Faith and that the moderators are somehow part of the Baha'i Administration. This is not the case. While the moderators try to use Baha'i principles of consultation and at times request guidence from Institutions of the Faith, we are not in any way connected with the Administrative Order. We are simply volunteers who try to apply the charter of the newsgroup to the submissions that come before us. The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement alone that I have rejected some of your posts. In doing so, I am making no judgement as to your fitness or standing as a Baha'i. Let me stress again, the moderators stand ready to post your views to the newsgroup no matter what they are as long as they meet these simple criteria: - they address aspects of the Baha'i Faith - they are respectful in tone - they are not personal attacks - they are not ads or solicitations Your posts have at times fallen short in the 2nd and 3rd category. Each time I have suggested how you can get your views heard on the newsgroup. It is completely up to you whether you want to cooperate and live by these rules. If you insist on a right to belittle and be disrespectful with those you engage in discussion, I will fully support your right to do so either by e-mail, on another newsgroup, by phone, mail, or in person. But if you want to participate in this newsgroup, you will have to abide by the charter and the moderators. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:01:31 -0500 Message-ID: <32935722.7DC@moa.net> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:08:18 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611201644.JAA14736@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher writes: > > > > Further response-- Your characterization of my comments as sarcastic > > is ludicrous. One may not be sarcastic in the Baha'i Faith? And you > > are too determine is toooooo SARCASTIC? Oh God, what a farce! > > > > Since you apparently don't understand the passage in question, I'm > > supposed to water in down for YOUR ignorance! I'm talking about the > > totalitarianism of the SOVIET UNION which you dangerously come close > > to. > > > > Again, I request that you post my message or pass it on to someone > > else who is not as fanatical as you. > > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct some misunderstandings > you have about the newsgroup soc.religion.bahai. It appears you have > the impression that the newsgroup has some kind of official standing > within the Baha'i Faith and that the moderators are somehow part of > the Baha'i Administration. This is not the case. While the moderators > try to use Baha'i principles of consultation and at times request > guidence from Institutions of the Faith, we are not in any way connected > with the Administrative Order. We are simply volunteers who try to > apply the charter of the newsgroup to the submissions that come before > us. > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the second passage in the post in question. Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. In doing so, I am making > no judgement as to your fitness or standing as a Baha'i. > > Let me stress again, the moderators stand ready to post your views > to the newsgroup no matter what they are as long as they meet these > simple criteria: > > - they address aspects of the Baha'i Faith > - they are respectful in tone > - they are not personal attacks > - they are not ads or solicitations > > Your posts have at times fallen short in the 2nd and 3rd category. Each > time I have suggested how you can get your views heard on the newsgroup. > It is completely up to you whether you want to cooperate and live by these > rules. If you insist on a right to belittle and be disrespectful with those > you engage in discussion, I will fully support your right to do so either > by e-mail, on another newsgroup, by phone, mail, or in person. But if you > want to participate in this newsgroup, you will have to abide by the charter > and the moderators. > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:09:42 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id PAA05783; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:14:44 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id PAA26784; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:14:44 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:14:43 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <32935722.7DC@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 20, 96 02:08:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > second passage in the post in question. > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. But I hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. That way, the respectful tone is maintained. Remember that the readership includes people from all backgrounds and cultures. I have been surprised many times when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. I try to make sure the chance of this is kept to a minimum. And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and unfettered consultation. I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:00:43 -0500 Message-ID: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:07:29 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > > second passage in the post in question. > > > > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. Then what's YOUR problem. Post it or suppress it. But I > hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this > point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. You're assumption is that OTHERS will be as imperceptive as you. And hence you BAN ME! > Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be > misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. Even after admitting the ERROR is on your part? Not logical. You're trying to justify your heavy-handed will to BAN. That way, > the respectful tone is maintained. There is nothing disrespectful about either passage YOU'VE questioned. Remember that the readership includes > people from all backgrounds and cultures. Irrelevant justification. You're groping for excuses. I have been surprised many times > when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. Nothing would then ever get posted in your scenario. Unless it meets your prejudices. I try to make sure the > chance of this is kept to a minimum. > I don't know that. You're suppression to posting ratio would be required to make that determination; it would have to be independently confirmed. > And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." > makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you > rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I > assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > You sound like a schoolmarm. A self-righteous, prudish old bag. What gives you the right? God's charter? It doesn't come from Him. > > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > > > > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure > those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and > unfettered consultation. > You're completely fettering my consultation. But that's okay. You possess the prescience to know better. Again, you're groping for justification of your suppressing the presentation of my views to others. > I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in > question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. > Mr. Detweiler, you appear to me to be completely shameless and drunk on your little power to muzzle people who don't echo your opinions. > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai Again, I ask you to post my message since as you acknowledge above its about IDEAS. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:35:33 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr08.primenet.com [206.165.5.108]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA04978 for <@moa.net>; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:40:39 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA09540 for @moa.net; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:40:38 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611211540.IAA09540@primenet.com> Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:40:37 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 21, 96 10:07:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, When you make the modifications asked or post something which meets the charter of the newsgroup, I will be happy to post it. Dick Detweiler co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > From @moa.net Thu Nov 21 08:05:55 1996 > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA07420 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:05:54 -0700 (MST) > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:00:43 -0500 > Message-ID: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:07:29 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > CC: @moa.net > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > References: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > > > > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > > > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > > > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > > > second passage in the post in question. > > > > > > > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. > > Then what's YOUR problem. Post it or suppress it. > > But I > > hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this > > point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. > > You're assumption is that OTHERS will be as imperceptive as you. And hence > you BAN ME! > > > Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be > > misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. > > Even after admitting the ERROR is on your part? Not logical. You're trying > to justify your heavy-handed will to BAN. > > That way, > > the respectful tone is maintained. > > There is nothing disrespectful about either passage YOU'VE questioned. > > Remember that the readership includes > > people from all backgrounds and cultures. > > Irrelevant justification. You're groping for excuses. > > I have been surprised many times > > when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. > > Nothing would then ever get posted in your scenario. Unless it meets > your prejudices. > > I try to make sure the > > chance of this is kept to a minimum. > > > > I don't know that. You're suppression to posting ratio would be required > to make that determination; it would have to be independently confirmed. > > > And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." > > makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you > > rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I > > assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > > > > You sound like a schoolmarm. A self-righteous, prudish old bag. What gives > you the right? God's charter? It doesn't come from Him. > > > > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > > > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > > > > > > > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure > > those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and > > unfettered consultation. > > > > You're completely fettering my consultation. But that's okay. You possess > the prescience to know better. Again, you're groping for justification of > your suppressing the presentation of my views to others. > > > I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in > > question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. > > > > Mr. Detweiler, you appear to me to be completely shameless and drunk on your > little power to muzzle people who don't echo your opinions. > > > Dick Detweiler > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > Again, I ask you to post my message since as you acknowledge above its about > IDEAS. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:34:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F108.4BEF@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:41:44 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community References: <199611211540.IAA09540@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 What I wrote meets the charter of the newsgroup and the "modifications" you want are unnecessary and unjustifiable. You yourself acknowledged your request for "modification" was based on your own misreading and misunderstanding of the post. God save us if the Baha'i Faith comes down to people like you "protecting" us.... I ask you again to post it or pass it on to someone else who's more rational than you. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > When you make the modifications asked or post something which meets the > charter of the newsgroup, I will be happy to post it. > > Dick Detweiler > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > From @moa.net Thu Nov 21 08:05:55 1996 > > Received: from atlas.moa.net (atlas.moa.net [198.111.46.21]) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA07420 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 199 > > Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.57) by atlas.moa.net > > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; > > Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:00:43 -0500 > > Message-ID: <32947031.2ADA@moa.net> > > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:07:29 -0500 > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > To: "Richard C. Detweiler" > > CC: @moa.net > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > References: <199611202214.PAA26784@primenet.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The charter of the newsgroup states that "the Newsgroup will be subject > > > > > to standards of Baha'i consultation whose salient features include frank > > > > > yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > > > > > for truth." It is on this statement in the charter and this statement > > > > > alone that I have rejected some of your posts. > > > > > > > > I don't believe this is true. "Utterly naive" refers to the idea, not to > > > > its author as an insult. You're the one who has construed that way. I can't > > > > even understand what could possibly be WRONG with your objection to the > > > > second passage in the post in question. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it like that. > > > > Then what's YOUR problem. Post it or suppress it. > > > > But I > > > hope you can see that if I (and the other mods) can be confused on this > > > point, it will probably be the case with many in the readership as well. > > > > You're assumption is that OTHERS will be as imperceptive as you. And hence > > you BAN ME! > > > > > Our tendency is to err on the side of not posting things when they may be > > > misinterpretted by the readership as being attacks or insults. > > > > Even after admitting the ERROR is on your part? Not logical. You're trying > > to justify your heavy-handed will to BAN. > > > > That way, > > > the respectful tone is maintained. > > > > There is nothing disrespectful about either passage YOU'VE questioned. > > > > Remember that the readership includes > > > people from all backgrounds and cultures. > > > > Irrelevant justification. You're groping for excuses. > > > > I have been surprised many times > > > when seemingly innocuous comments have offended. > > > > Nothing would then ever get posted in your scenario. Unless it meets > > your prejudices. > > > > I try to make sure the > > > chance of this is kept to a minimum. > > > > > > > I don't know that. You're suppression to posting ratio would be required > > to make that determination; it would have to be independently confirmed. > > > > > And, if I may, don't you think "I believe you are being naive because..." > > > makes your points easier for other to accept and continue to engage you > > > rather than a brusque "Utterly naive"? Please think about that. I > > > assume your reason for being here is to share your viewpoint with others. > > > > > > > You sound like a schoolmarm. A self-righteous, prudish old bag. What gives > > you the right? God's charter? It doesn't come from Him. > > > > > > Your attempt to hide behind the newsgroup charter strikes me as a mere > > > > stratagem to conceal what you're actually doing: CENSORING. > > > > > > > > > > Once again, Mr Glaysher - my job is not to supress ideas but to make sure > > > those ideas are presented in a respectful manner conducive to frank and > > > unfettered consultation. > > > > > > > You're completely fettering my consultation. But that's okay. You possess > > the prescience to know better. Again, you're groping for justification of > > your suppressing the presentation of my views to others. > > > > > I continue to await the chance to post your thoughts in the submittals in > > > question when they are appropriate for posting to the newsgroup. > > > > > > > Mr. Detweiler, you appear to me to be completely shameless and drunk on your > > little power to muzzle people who don't echo your opinions. > > > > > Dick Detweiler > > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > Again, I ask you to post my message since as you acknowledge above its about > > IDEAS. > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:38:37 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:51 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 53 Message-ID: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> References: <"uiWV9.A.DUF.dSkjy"@bounty> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) To: karl1971@aol.com CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 karl1971@aol.com wrote: > [clip] > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > make love, not war. > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > or her life. > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > daughter-in-law. > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > loathsome addiction. > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > through hell in a handbasket. > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > sensual affection. > > > > -- sincerely > > -- Karl Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her veins.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:02:24 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr11.primenet.com [206.165.5.111]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.2/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id JAA17044 for <@MOA.net>; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:31 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id JAA22964 for @MOA.net; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:31 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611171607.JAA22964@primenet.com> Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:07:30 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 17, 96 09:45:16 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Not suitable for the group. Tell hi mto take it to e-mail. Dick D. > From news@news2.acs.oakland.edu Sun Nov 17 07:43:51 1996 > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id HAA12476 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 07:43:50 -0700 (MST) > Received: from relay6.UU.NET by bcca.org with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0vP8Rl-0008esC; Sun, 17 Nov 96 09:43 EST > Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu by relay6.UU.NET with ESMTP > (peer crosschecked as: news2.acs.oakland.edu [141.210.10.152]) > id QQbqfq06145; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:44 -0500 (EST) > Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:51 -0500 > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 53 > Message-ID: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> > References: <"uiWV9.A.DUF.dSkjy"@bounty> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > To: karl1971@aol.com > CC: @MOA.net > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > [clip] > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > make love, not war. > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > or her life. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > daughter-in-law. > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > loathsome addiction. > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > -- Karl > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > veins.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:02:27 -0500 Message-ID: <32905FF7.25F8@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:09:11 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <199611171607.JAA22964@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Not suitable for the group. Tell hi mto take it to e-mail. > > Dick D. > Dick, I mean this in all seriousness. You're a fascist pig. I'd say that to your face, fellow.... > > From news@news2.acs.oakland.edu Sun Nov 17 07:43:51 1996 > > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id HAA12476 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1 > > Received: from relay6.UU.NET by bcca.org with smtp > > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0vP8Rl-0008esC; Sun, 17 Nov 96 09:43 EST > > Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu by relay6.UU.NET with ESMTP > > (peer crosschecked as: news2.acs.oakland.edu [141.210.10.152]) > > id QQbqfq06145; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:44 -0500 (EST) > > Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id JAA19072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:43:51 -0500 > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-29.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 53 > > Message-ID: <328F24FC.253@moa.net> > > References: <"uiWV9.A.DUF.dSkjy"@bounty> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > [clip] > > > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > > make love, not war. > > > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > > or her life. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > > daughter-in-law. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > > loathsome addiction. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > > > -- Karl > > > > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > > veins.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:56:17 -0500 Received: from boatrigh (Port75.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.86]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA08931; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:01:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611171601.KAA08931@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@MOA.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:13:19 -0600 Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, A real, true _question_. Did you mean for this to go out to the newsgroup? The humor is apparent, the advice is probebly reasonable, but I am forced to wonder if you really ment the post to go to the newsgroup. It seems too susceptable to te kind of mis-interpretation that gets rwars started..... I therefore suspect that you ment this for private email. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > To: karl1971@aol.com > Cc: @MOA.net > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > [clip] > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > make love, not war. > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > or her life. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > daughter-in-law. > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > loathsome addiction. > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > -- Karl > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > veins.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:00:21 -0500 Message-ID: <32905F79.61AB@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:07:05 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <199611171601.KAA08931@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > A real, true _question_. Did you mean for this to go out to the > newsgroup? The humor is apparent, the advice is probebly reasonable, > but I am forced to wonder if you really ment the post to go to the > newsgroup. It seems too susceptable to te kind of mis-interpretation > that gets rwars started..... I therefore suspect that you ment > this for private email. > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > You "suspect" incorrectly. I certainly intended for my message to be posted. I'd appreciate if you'd act as a moderator and not a censor. I find you're interfering in my communication offensive. Post it. > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > [clip] > > > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > > make love, not war. > > > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > > or her life. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > > daughter-in-law. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > > loathsome addiction. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > > > -- Karl > > > > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > > veins.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (198.81.11.92) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:59:46 -0500 Received: by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21257 for @moa.net; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:04:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:04:54 -0500 From: KARL1971@aol.com Message-ID: <961117180453_1083116951@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: @moa.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 In a message dated 96-11-17 09:44:24 EST, you write: << Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her veins.... >> Do you know of any single ages 18-30? Karl Lehman, Oregon, USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.39) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:34:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3290676C.6301@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:41:00 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KARL1971@aol.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <961117180453_1083116951@emout01.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 KARL1971@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 96-11-17 09:44:24 EST, you write: > > << Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little > unsolicited > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i > women, the > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing > through her > veins.... > >> > > Do you know of any single ages 18-30? > > Karl Lehman, Oregon, USA Karl, unlike the fascists who "moderate" the newsgroup, you have a sense of humor. They've banned the post I sent you from the wires as not "suitable." Too many fanatical feminist Baha'i broads out there would have their "feelings" hurt, I guess.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:53:24 -0500 Received: from RICK (Port106.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.217]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA17797 for <@moa.net>; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:57:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611181657.KAA17797@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:58:04 -0600 Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 And in your internal model, what is the difference between a moderator and a censor? I asked a polite question. Did you intend to post this? Lots of people post things they didn't intend to, and we catch a lot of those. They are generally greatful. I didn't complain that you characterize Baha'i women as bloodless. I probebly should. I didn't complain that your comment was bigoted and offensive to the vast majority of sexually active and spirited Baha'i women, though I probebly should. Let them tell you that themselves. I asked a polite question. Lighten up. Don't try to put a nazi mantle on my shoulders. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:07:05 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > Cc: @moa.net > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > A real, true _question_. Did you mean for this to go out to the > > newsgroup? The humor is apparent, the advice is probebly reasonable, > > but I am forced to wonder if you really ment the post to go to the > > newsgroup. It seems too susceptable to te kind of mis-interpretation > > that gets rwars started..... I therefore suspect that you ment > > this for private email. > > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > You "suspect" incorrectly. I certainly intended for my message to be posted. > I'd appreciate if you'd act as a moderator and not a censor. > > I find you're interfering in my communication offensive. Post it. > > > > > > > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > > Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) > > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:45:16 -0500 > > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > > To: karl1971@aol.com > > > Cc: @MOA.net > > > > > karl1971@aol.com wrote: > > > > [clip] > > > > > > > The believers of Baha'u'llah have a Faith of integrity. Unlike the world > > > > that's falling apart around us, the ones who who believe in Baha'u'llah > > > > make love, not war. > > > > > > > > One of the most important ways we do this is by fulfilling a legitimate > > > > quest to marry, always confident each and everyone of us has the potential > > > > to be a partner of a beautiful spiritual match made in heaven. > > > > > > > > In a Bahai Marriage: > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a partner with patience, who believes in dreams, > > > > justice, miracles, and aspirations who will spend every one of his or her > > > > most physically intimate moments with one and only one for the rest of his > > > > or her life. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world where every father and mother is > > > > completely satisfied with who they have for a son-in-law or > > > > daughter-in-law. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a fellow beauty of the opposite sex who respects > > > > his or her body and doesn't smoke dope or drink booze or have some > > > > loathsome addiction. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than someone who always had high standards of > > > > justice, integrity, dignity, and morality, and has always been sensitive > > > > and intelligent, even having been raised among sick people and having gone > > > > through hell in a handbasket. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than beautiful love making experiences with standards > > > > of integrity that free us from the shackles of a promiscuous world. > > > > > > > > We seek nothing less than a world full of pairs of men and women of good > > > > taste who legitimately receive and satisfy each other's desires for > > > > sensual affection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- sincerely > > > > > > > > -- Karl > > > > > > > > > Karl, man to man, you need to get married! Let me give you a little unsolicited > > > advice, if you don't mind. Don't choose one of these half-dead Baha'i women, the > > > self-righteous zealot type. Find a real woman with some blood flowing through her > > > veins.... > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:41:09 -0500 Message-ID: <32919E6A.414D@moa.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:47:54 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: The Integrity of Bahai Marriage (revised) References: <199611181657.KAA17797@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > And in your internal model, what is the difference between a > moderator and a censor? See previous message to you. I asked a polite question. Did you intend > to post this? I sent it to the newsgroup, didn't I? Lots of people post things they didn't intend to, and > we catch a lot of those. In such cases, you'd be properly assisting discussion. They are generally greatful. I didn't > complain that you characterize Baha'i women as bloodless. Why should you? What business is it of yours? I'm not writing to you, nor do I want to. Yet here I am stuck in a non-productive task dealing with you and Richard.... I probebly > should. Why should you. Who the hell are you? I didn't complain that your comment was bigoted and > offensive to the vast majority of sexually active and spirited Baha'i > women, though I probebly should. A complaint you're entitled to make. In public. In response to me on the Net. Not shunting anything YOU don't like off into obscurity. Let them tell you that themselves. > I am saying the freedom for them to say so should be extended to them. You are robbing them of that God-given freedom of expression of conscience. > I asked a polite question. > > Lighten up. > Don't tell me to lighten up when you and Richard are perverting and screening the newsgroup self-righteous, prudishly suppressing opinions you don't like. Again, who are you two to make such decisions? Do you really imagine God has given you the ability to make such judgements? > Don't try to put a nazi mantle on my shoulders. > It's already there, Rick. Wake up. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:36:22 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA29545; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:41:43 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-14.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:43:04 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 20 Message-ID: <32945C68.3378@moa.net> References: <56tfo6$cgg@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <56vdgi$eth@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling through this morass.... The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the power to change the world.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:11:25 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id IAA00181; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:16:46 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling through this morass.... The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the power to change the world.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:48:10 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA13654; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA01560; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 22, 96 08:18:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:11:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F9AE.6D7C@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:18:38 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Detweiler" CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Thank you Richard for Teaching me what the Baha'i Faith truly stands for. Again, I believe you are CENSORING me and ask you to pass this post on to someone else. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will > not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic > in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the > following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight > into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. > > "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid > stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By > the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to > another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for > yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love > for your country, but in love for all mankind." > > - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained > as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). > > "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its > influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is > conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts > which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be > combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures > and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the > heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, > that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in > the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." > > - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 > > "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech > a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas > the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The > force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the > effects of the latter endure a century." > - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 > > Thank you for participating, > > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 20 > > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > through this morass.... > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > ================ End submitted post =========================== -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:03:35 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.5.102]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id LAA20484; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:08:40 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id LAA13655; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:08:40 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611231808.LAA13655@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @moa.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:08:39 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3296F9AE.6D7C@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 23, 96 08:18:38 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 > > Thank you Richard for Teaching me what the Baha'i Faith truly stands for. > > Again, I believe you are CENSORING me and ask you to pass this post on to > someone else. > It is the policy of the moderation team that we are responsible for the posts that come in on our watches which typically last a week. After that week we still are individually responsible for the posts submitted on our time. In the future if you would like to address your remarks to the moderation team, please send them to srb-mods@bcca.org which will reach all of the moderators. However, the decision on the posts in question rest with me as per the moderation policy of the newsgroup. Dick Detweiler --------------3E69366EFD Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (206.52.158.250) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:32:53 -0500 Received: from Packard (Port114.cjnetworks.com [206.52.159.169]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA27030; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:37:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Busines Computers To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net>, srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:29:01 -0600 Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Dear Frederick, The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." and that it and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters restrictions on abusive language. The group of moderators further have requested that one of our number forward to you several selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech and the care with which we must choose words. Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. Additionally, you may contact the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. I will forward their address to you in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > From: FG <@moa.net> > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > Cc: @moa.net > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > posted. > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > which this was responding. > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > through this morass.... > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > power to change the world.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:15:58 -0500 Message-ID: <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:22:47 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Boatright wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. and that it > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > restrictions on abusive language. "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions you differ with. The group of moderators further > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! and the care > with which we must choose words. > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. Additionally, you may contact > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. I will forward their address to you > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > Cc: @moa.net > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > posted. > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: <329C26DE.A6E@moa.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:32:46 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <199611261737.LAA27030@topeka.cjnetworks.com> <329C2487.3D60@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Would you like a case study in manipulation of speech on soc.religion.bahai? Read this. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Dear Frederick, > > > > The decisions about the replies to your posts have been made by the > > group of moderators not by Dick acting alone. > > > > I am very very sorry you feel abused about this. The moderators > > profoundly belive that this post does not contribute to discussion > > "about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > > The moderators are wrong and censoring my speech. > > and that it > > and the previous post that it reffers to violate the charters > > restrictions on abusive language. > > "Abusive language"? Cite some of it for me. "Utterly naive"? Oh come on! > What you're doing is censoring and manipulating postings that express opinions > you differ with. > > The group of moderators further > > have requested that one of our number forward to you several > > selections from the Baha'i writings about hateful speech > > "Hateful speech"! How dare you! Cite it for me, please. It's not in either > post. I absolutely resent your self-righteous, self-serving characterization > of my speech as "hateful." Keep the Baha'i selections and read them yourself! > > and the care > > with which we must choose words. > > > > Your choice of words leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I don't believe > "hate speech" is in the Baha'i Writings. It's part of the worthless, prevailing > liberalism you're not intelligent enough to see through. > > > Beyond that, if you still feel the moderators are overstepping their > > bounds, you may, of course, post your comments about the moderators > > in the appropriate forum on Usenet, which is usually considered to be > > news.admin.abuse or news.admin.misc. > > In other words, go away and leave us alone. Don't dare question our > judgement or rock the boat because we're blessed with holy insight. > > Additionally, you may contact > > the newsgroups sponsoring LSA. > > Why bother? They'll probably only be fanatics like you. > > I will forward their address to you > > in a subsequent message, however, you should be forwarned that the > > Assembly does not exercise direct oversight over the moderators, nor > > is it chartered to. The newsgroup moderators are chartered by the > > Usenet newsgroup system, not by any Baha'i institution. > > > > Entirely loose canons, eh? Uh huh. Fascists in MHO. > > > Rick Boatright > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:17:46 -0500 > > > From: FG <@moa.net> > > > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > Cc: @moa.net > > > Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled > > > > > I believe Richard Detweiler is CENSORING my following message. I appeal > > > to you, whoever you are, to have some common sense and permit it to be > > > posted. > > > > > > I will forward to you the original message, which he also CENSORED, to > > > which this was responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > > > > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > > > > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > > > > through this morass.... > > > > > > > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > > > > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > > > > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > > > > > > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > > > > power to change the world.... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.83.36) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:51:01 -0500 Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA19798; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA19796; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlas.moa.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA19792; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 09:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.42) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:49:20 -0500 Message-ID: <32A19C8D.6F4@moa.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:56:13 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SManeck@berry.edu CC: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled References: <445D77B7BE5@odin.berry.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Susan Maneck wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > Your postings are not what I would call "hate speech" but they are > "flames." I think you will make your points much more effectively if > your tone were a bit more temperate. I say that as someone who > sympathizes with your concerns. > > Susan Tone? I'll chose the tone I damn well like! To hell with you bunch of self-appointed overseers of public discussion.... Temperate? As insipid and devoid of personality as the circuits of a computer board! Is this what the Baha'i Faith amounts to? Old biddies shaking their crooked fingers in the faces of naughty little boys.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.60) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:07:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3296F8B3.400A@moa.net> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:14:27 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talisman@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: [Fwd: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled and HONESTY] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------23F0783A7928" X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------23F0783A7928 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Will I be permitted a hearing here? Oh my, perhaps I should first consult the holy texts.... No, I might misread them.... Others will read them for me--they shall tell me what they mean. God has inspired them.... What I should do? Dare I.... Oh this world of muck and mud.... Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== Forgive me if I hurt your feelings! -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------23F0783A7928 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com (206.165.5.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:48:10 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (rdetweil@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.5.104]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.8.3/wjp-h3.00) with ESMTP id IAA13654; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA01560; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199611221548.IAA01560@primenet.com> Subject: Re: New Sacred Text Unveiled To: @MOA.net (Frederick Glaysher) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> from "Frederick Glaysher" at Nov 22, 96 08:18:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Sorry for the inadvertent send on the last message. The following will not be posted to the newsgroup as it is disrespectful in tone and sarcastic in the extreme. As a Baha'i, perhaps you will get some value out of the following excerpts from Baha'u'llah's Writings. I provide them as insight into why the moderators enforce the policies they have in place. "O ye beloved of the Lord! Commit not that which defileth the limpid stream of love or destroyeth the sweet fragrance of friendship. By the righteousness of the Lord! We were created to show love one to another and not perversity and rancor. Take pride not in love for yourselves but in love for your fellow-creatures. Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind." - Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah 138 (quoted in "Unrestrained as the Wind", section on "Demonstrating love and fellowship", p 87 ). "Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets. Meditate upon that which hath streamed forth from the heaven of the Will of thy Lord, He Who is the Source of all grace, that thou mayest grasp the intended meaning which is enshrined in the sacred depths of the Holy Writings." - Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 143 "For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century." - Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193 Thank you for participating, Dick Detweiler rdetweil@primenet.com Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-11.ouhub.moa.net > From: FG <@MOA.net> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: New Sacred Text Unveiled > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:18:05 -0500 > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3295A80D.1168@moa.net> > References: <56vhv1$p1e@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > CC: @MOA.net > > Apparently, a new text has been discovered. Or perhaps it has always > been there. I, and others, apparently, missed it. It was difficult > to see. Alas, I, we, are so woefully human.... Blind and stumbling > through this morass.... > > The crucial passage in the newly discovered Revealed Word is this: > > > THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM! > > > There are sensitive plants. We mustn't hurt their feelings. > > I beg all of you to meditate profoundly on this koan. It has the > power to change the world.... > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester, Michigan USA > ================ End submitted post =========================== --------------23F0783A7928-- --------------3E69366EFD Received: from news2.acs.oakland.edu (141.210.10.152) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:40:49 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by news2.acs.oakland.edu (8.7.6/8.7.4) id KAA07287; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:46:11 -0500 To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Path: ppp-pm01-dy-3.ouhub.moa.net From: FG <@MOA.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Let Soc.Religion.Bahai Participants Hear & Decide Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:47:23 -0500 Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. Lines: 153 Message-ID: <32986E0B.5210@moa.net> References: <578ls9$6ap@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) CC: @MOA.net X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 What do YOU think? Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > As your post contains sarcastic comments and argues with the > moderation of the group in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, > it will not be posted. These issues are also peripheral to > the purpose of the newsgroup in any case. > False. They go to the heart of the matter, i.e., how it functions. > If you are seeking full vent to your frustrations, I suggest > news.admin or talk.religion.misc on the Internet as the first > is appropriate and the other is unmoderated. "Vent your frustrations" is in the same category as my "Utterly naive." I don't seek to deprive you of your conscience that apparently believes that. You may say what you wish. It won't hurt my little feelings. I believe you're again manipulating discussion in a dictatorial, oppressive manner unjustified by anything in the Baha'i Writings which you apparently cloak your shameless deeds in. This newsgroup, > however, is for discussion of the Baha'i Faith in an atmosphere > of respect and free from topical tangents of all kinds. > The abuse of the conscience of a member of the Baha'i Faith and, apparently regular practice of distortion and censorship is not a suitable topic? I can understand why you wouldn't wish to have anyone else know.... > Thank you for participating, > I'm not participating at all. You are self-righteously depriving me of that. You are also depriving others of hearing or disagreeing with my opinions. > Dick Detweiler > rdetweil@primenet.com > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > ================ Begin submitted post ========================= > > > To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net > > Path: ppp-pm01-dy-26.ouhub.moa.net > > From: FG <@MOA.net> > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Subject: Re: Incredibly Disillusioned with the Baha'i Community > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:44:11 -0500 > > Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A. > > Lines: 68 > > Message-ID: <32918F7B.76FA@moa.net> > > References: <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty> <56qogd$rii@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.moa.net > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) > > To: Sian Smith > > CC: @MOA.net > > > > Sian Smith wrote: > > > > > > In article <"-ER8GC.A.gTH.UGkiy"@bounty>, Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> says: > > > > > > > > > > [snip extracts from previous messages about being disillusioned] > > > > > > >> : >As you know, the Bahai Faith doesn't have priests, preachers, or any > > > >> : >individuals who have the responsibility of telling people what to do, unlike > > > >> : >churches. However, from my experience I've discovered associating with > > > >> : >"Bahais" and not expecting them to play the roles of surrogate priests and > > > >> : > surrogate parish to be incredibly wishful and foolish thinking. > > > >> > > > >> : Since the Baha'i Community does not have a paid clergy, every Baha'is is > > > >> : to perform the service that the clergy of previous religions performed. We > > > >> : are each to study the Holy Writings, and to teach and deepen others in the > > > >> : Faith. It may be hard for one of a traditional religious background that > > > >> : does not encourage study to take responsibility for one's own spiritual > > > >> : growth, but we all have to struggle to change our shortcomings. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Miguel, you utterly miss Karl's well-taken point here again. It's the abuse of > > > >the responsibility that is the crux of his observation. Power corrupts. > > > >And it can corrupt Baha'is as well as Christians, Muslims, Nazis, etc. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but WHO in the Baha'i Faith has any "power"? I've > > > never met anyone in the Faith who has power of any kind (i.e: power in > > > the sense that they can exert some kind of binding influence over > > > another person). > > > > I'll give you an example: The "moderators" of this newsgroup. They've > > censored a number of messages I've tried to post during the last few weeks. > > They have the "power" to determine what you and everyone else OUT THERE > > reads.... If that's not control and power to SHAPE thought and opinion what > > is it? > > > > Maybe the previous writer was referring to some other > > > kind of power - in which case I would be grateful to receive a > > > "definition", so to speak, of this power and how it compares to the > > > "definition" I had in mind which, in my own humble opinion, is the sort > > > of power which is contained in the assertion "power corrupts". > > > > > > > The "moderators" power is corrupting and inhibiting the exchange of ideas > > on this newsgroup. When I attempted to bring this to the attention of > > contributors by posting a message to this effect earlier, I was told > > > > THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE "MODERATORS." > > Kitab-i-Oppression, page 999. > > > > > The only person who has any kind of power over my spiritual development > > > is ME. I cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else. > > > > > > > There's a sense in which you're right. But secular and religious history > > is wracked with the abuse of POWER and the devastating results of it.... > > It always began in little ways.... A little at a time.... People shrugged.... > > Let's not make ways.... Let's build UNITY! > > > > > Loving greetings > > > > > > Sian Smith > > > Wellington > > > New Zealand > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > Rochester, Michigan USA > > > = End submitted post =========================== YOU DEAR CENSORS have shown your true colors once again. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA Is this happening to YOU too? Assuming this post is now CENSORED, what do YOU make of it? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from stargate.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.63.82) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Dec 1996 11:25:49 -0500 Received: from localhost by stargate.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id LAA13105; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:31:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:31:01 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole X-Sender: jrcole@stargate.rs.itd.umich.edu To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: use of Lists In-Reply-To: <32A2BFBA.501F@moa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Frederick: The self-righteous prig remark was out of line. Talisman doesn't have many rules, but personal insults are off limits. I want you to stick around and become a productive part of the list, but this sort of behavior can get you kicked off by majority vote. It would be out of my hands. JRIC --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.56) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:18:30 -0500 Message-ID: <32A40E22.25DD@moa.net> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:25:22 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juan R Cole CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: use of Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Juan R Cole wrote: > > Frederick: > > The self-righteous prig remark was out of line. Talisman doesn't have > many rules, but personal insults are off limits. I want you to stick > around and become a productive part of the list, but this sort of behavior > can get you kicked off by majority vote. It would be out of my hands. > > JRIC I really don't think it was "out of line." It seems to me to have been quite accurate.... I'll try not to hurt any FEELINGS. It won't be easy given the hypersensitivity of some people. I'll consider your suggestions along these lines more carefully. Incidentally, thanks for the info on LISTSERVS. It may take me several days to read and think about it. Something for you to ponder: There's more than one way to skin a cat. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.56) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:11:13 -0500 Message-ID: <32A40C6D.1ACF@moa.net> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 06:18:05 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LineSync Architecture CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: use of Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 LineSync Architecture wrote: > > I find the continued disparaging language of Frederick Glaysher to be most > offensive. This list is for academic discourse which is easily carried on > without character assumptions and accusations. > > Julie Lineberger Give me an example of "disparaging language." Sorry to offend your FEELINGS. Your message leads me to believe you don't know anything about academic discourse.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.50) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:33:46 -0500 Message-ID: <32A72538.39F5@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:40:40 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Schaut CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Richard Logan's Comments References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Rick Schaut wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > You asked, > > >What "episode" do you refer to? Can you flesh that out a little more? > > > >I believe my message contained sufficient facts for my point to be made. > >You're certainly welcome to ask around if you wish. > > > > > >Regards, > >Rick I'm asking you, but you apparently imagine it's all self-evident. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.63.80) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Dec 1996 11:45:39 -0500 Received: from localhost by pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id LAA27651; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:50:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Joshua S. Greenbaum" X-Sender: jsgreen@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu To: @moa.net Subject: Talisman Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am sorry to inform you that due to numerous complaints regarding your behavior, I have been forced to remove you from the Talisman list for a period of six months. ******************************************************************************* Josh Greenbaum "For we are like tree trunks in the snow. Program Assistant In appearance they lie sleekly and a Center for Middle Eastern little push should be enough to set them and North African Studies rolling. No, it can't be done, for they 144 Lane Hall 1290 are firmly wedded to the ground. (313) 764-0350 But see, even that is only an appearance." jsgreen@umich.edu -Franz Kafka --------------3E69366EFD Message-ID: <32A6B2F4.5808@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:33:08 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard C. Logan" CC: Sandra Fotos , Juan Cole , "Eric D. Pierce" , Talisman , Soc.Religion.Bahai Subject: Re: Serial Tantrums References: <199612050543.XAA02813@mailhost.onramp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Richard C. Logan wrote: > > >No, no, no.... Don't be pedant.... Cite MY nasty, brutish remarks that > >offend > >your FEELINGS so.... TELL me I'm wrong. I'll consider it. Give me some > >reasoning.... NOT footnotes. > > > >I'm surrounded by books here in my study and have plenty to read already > >though > >I'll read what you write HERE. > > Dear Doctor Cole, > > I formally request that Mr. Glaysher be removed from the list, or at the > very least he be admonished to stop being so personal and contentious. > Everyday I read some unpleasant and rude remarks. Is this really > neccesary? > > Richard C. Logan > nineteen@onramp.net > Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock" > https://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/ My apologies if I've made "some unpleasant and rude remarks." If Mr. Logan would give me more of a sense of exactly what it is he finds to be so, I could respond more precisely. If you all will permit me, I find it unpleasant that vague accusations against me might result in the GAS OVENS! I mean really, come on! The post of my cited above appears to me to be quite innocuous. How that could be grounds for ostracism is beyond me. Okay. I'll try, sincerely, to be nicer.... Give me chance. Heh, isn't this the newsgroup that has had on it so much about FREE SPEECH and CONSCIENCE lately? (How humiliating, having to beg for one's life.) -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.50) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:36:42 -0500 Message-ID: <32A725E8.5C6E@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:43:36 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: belove@sover.net CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Serial Tantrums References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 belove@sover.net wrote: > > Philip here: > > I second this request. > On what basis? I don't find anything in THIS clip a justifiable basis for character assassination and ostracism.... As though it were all self-evident.... > --- On Wed, 4 Dec 96 23:45:15 -0600 "Richard C. Logan" > wrote: > > >>No, no, no.... Don't be pedant.... Cite MY nasty, brutish remarks that > > >>offend > >>your FEELINGS so.... TELL me I'm wrong. I'll consider it. Give me > some > >>reasoning.... NOT footnotes. > >> > >>I'm surrounded by books here in my study and have plenty to read already > > >>though > >>I'll read what you write HERE. > > > >Dear Doctor Cole, > > > >I formally request that Mr. Glaysher be removed from the list, or at the > >very least he be admonished to stop being so personal and contentious. > >Everyday I read some unpleasant and rude remarks. Is this really > >neccesary? > > > > > >Richard C. Logan > >nineteen@onramp.net > >Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock" > >https://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/ > > > > > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- > > ------------------------------------- > E-mail: belove@sover.net > Date: 12/5/96 > Time: 9:06:20 AM > > This message was sent by Chameleon > ------------------------------------- -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Message-ID: <32A6B6CA.490C@moa.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:49:30 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juan R Cole CC: @MOA.net Subject: FATWA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 jsgreen is banishing me on the basis of "numerous complaints"! Is that all it takes? What about FREE SPEECH and individual CONSCIENCE? Can you plead for my life? Don't let them send me to the gas chambers! The gulag! Seriously, this is a serious issue.... As a published writer and poet, I find it quite disturbing.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD Message-ID: <32A87892.7EAA@moa.net> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 14:48:34 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Quanta Dawn-Light CC: talisman@umich.edu, irfan@umich.edu Subject: Re: Please stop! References: <1B0C93A57B9@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Quanta Dawn-Light wrote: > > Dear beloved Frederick, > > You are more loved than you realize! You are the beloved > universal child of Father Cosmos and Mother Earth. > You contain many of hearts within you who do truly love you. > Stop hurting yourself. Please! Please! Please! > > love, > q. > > *************************************** > Life is a pattern of relationships (*_*) Well, dear friend (may I call you that?), I understand what you are saying.... Alas, here, in the Siberian taiga, I fear you blame the victim. Can you consider that? No one else has. I hope your good heart will permit you to for at least one moment.... Yes, not a complete victim. (Oh the bitter ironies of life, the soul a tangled skein.) I apologize, sincerely, dearest, for any untoward harm I might have done. And dearest Sonia, I will watch for you outside the prison walls! -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA --------------3E69366EFD-- From - Sat Dec 07 09:20:11 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.58) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 07 Dec 1996 08:18:58 -0500 Message-ID: <32A97021.450B@moa.net> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 08:24:49 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Quanta Dawn-Light CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Please stop! References: <1B811275629@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Quanta Dawn-Light wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > What is it really bothering you about this world? How do you think > you will change things by hurting? Isn't there enough pain already? > > love, > q. > > *************************************** > Life is a pattern of relationships (*_*) Oh, the tsar has crushed me, don't you understand? Why do you keep ignoring that? Rub the blinding light from your eyes so that you might truly see the pain and suffering of others. It's cold here in Siberia, cold.... and bitter....not to know the reason why.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Wed Dec 11 08:02:05 1996 Received: from panther.middlebury.edu (140.233.2.200) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 09 Dec 1996 16:39:54 -0500 Received: from puma.middlebury.edu by panther.middlebury.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA52575; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:37:41 -0500 Received: by puma.middlebury.edu (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA67262; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:37:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:37:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Marty A. Whited 99" X-Sender: whited@puma.middlebury.edu To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: The Gulag In-Reply-To: <32A8215E.6074@moa.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 I do not understand the message (The Gulag) that was sent to me. Can I be of any help to you? Please contact me if I can: Marty Whited (802)443-6129 email whited@panther.middlebury.edu snailmail Middlebury College box 4213 Middlebury Vt 05753 --Marty Whited, <"whited@midd-unix.middlebury.edu">, Class of 1999 "The happiness & greatness, the rank & station, the pleasure & peace, of an individual have never consisted in his personal wealth, but rather in his excellent character, his high resolve, the breadth of his learning, and his ability to solve difficult problems."--Abdul Baha From - Thu Dec 12 07:00:05 1996 Received: from mail.marsweb.com (205.226.96.51) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:20:50 -0500 Received: from default ([205.226.97.94]) by mail.marsweb.com (post.office MTA v1.9.3 **** trial license expired ****) with SMTP id AAA109 for <@moa.net>; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:43:48 -0700 Message-ID: <32AF7DEE.76F3@marsweb.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:37:19 -0700 From: positive@marsweb.com (Dan Bailiff) Reply-To: positive@marsweb.com Organization: M@RSWeb-Internet Services Montana X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: The Gulag References: <32A8215E.6074@moa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Frederick: What is your point here? I have a Master's Degree in Russian/Soviet history, so I understood the history of your long e-mail. What is new here, and what does it have to do with you and life and the current state of affairs? Anita. From - Fri Dec 20 11:00:02 1996 Received: from breakout.rs.itd.umich.edu (141.211.63.81) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:11:58 -0500 Received: from localhost by breakout.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3) with SMTP id KAA26434; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:17:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:17:16 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole X-Sender: jrcole@breakout.rs.itd.umich.edu To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai In-Reply-To: <32BAA4A1.5647@moa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Frederick: I wish you the best of luck, but urge you to get counselling first about your difficulties in interacting with people, since I fear the list would fall apart if you set a tone of personal insult. JRIC From - Fri Dec 20 10:13:42 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.37) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:35:40 -0500 Message-ID: <32BAA4A1.5647@moa.net> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:37:21 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jrcole@umich.edu CC: @MOA.net Subject: Talk.Religion.Bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 I've decided to attempt to create an unmoderated newsgroup, a Baha'i samizdat, if you will.... Any advice on the technical side, or otherwise, would be welcomed. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sat Dec 21 06:52:15 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.83) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:00:26 -0500 Message-ID: <32BAB934.27EE@moa.net> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:05:08 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juan R Cole CC: @MOA.net Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Juan R Cole wrote: > > Dear Frederick: > > I wish you the best of luck, but urge you to get counselling first about > your difficulties in interacting with people, since I fear the list would > fall apart if you set a tone of personal insult. > > JRIC Although I don't agree with your characterization here and its palpable unfairness, I'm sure you mean well here.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 29 08:24:37 1996 Received: from glaysher.library (204.38.255.43) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:52:34 -0500 Message-ID: <32BD5ADD.364B@moa.net> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:59:25 -0500 From: FG <@moa.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca CC: @MOA.net Subject: Talk.Religion.Bahai References: <199612040609.BAA11397@freenet6.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Dear Michael McKenny, I've decided to attempt to initiate an unmoderated forum, a Bahai samizdat. I don't know much about what's involved, technically speaking. I've written a rough draft for the proposal and am working on it with the usenet group people. Any interest in cooperating to some extent or another on it? I don't really know if much work is required once it's set up, if it gets past the voting. I'm assuming there shouldn't be too much.... Perhaps a mistake.... I'd appreciate hearing any ideas you might have on it. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester, Michigan USA From - Sun Dec 29 08:24:39 1996 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (134.117.136.20) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 19:30:45 -0500 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id TAA01443 for <@moa.net>; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 19:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.4/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA23827; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 19:36:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 19:36:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612230036.TAA23827@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: @moa.net Subject: re Talk.Religion.Bahai Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. I'm not a computer person, so I don't know what's needed from a technical standpoint, nor what kind of legalistic requirements you face. Let me know how to subscribe, and I'll do so, though my situation is that I already belong to about ten lists and a) my server only allows me a one meg max of space, and b) I'm very busy both on and off line. I pop on and off freenet, so unlike some people who receive messages instantly all day long at work, hours go by before I read something. Then, I go back off line and composes a response, time etc permitting to a few posts, often trying to advance a more open-minded approach than something I've read on Baha'i-St etc. From my activity in amateur press publications and in cyberspace, the one essential rule is no "snarking" or "flaming" of list members. Realistically, if you wish to have conservative Baha'is as members, then anything that can be taken as criticism of Institutions is going to be problematical. If you're lurking on Bahai-St, you can see how carefully I've been there lately, and still today one member irately asked me to stop posting. I hope this is of some use. Very Best Wishes, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Fri Dec 06 16:30:09 1996 Received: from cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu (152.1.1.224) by atlas.moa.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 06 Dec 1996 16:07:05 -0500 Received: from fllab.chass.ncsu.edu by cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu (8.7.3/NS20May96) id QAA26001; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:12:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from FLLAB/SpoolDir by fllab.chass.ncsu.edu (Mercury 1.21); 6 Dec 96 16:12:17 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by FLLAB (Mercury 1.21); 6 Dec 96 16:11:14 EST5EDT From: "Quanta Dawn-Light" To: Frederick Glaysher <@moa.net> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:10:56 EST Subject: Re: Please stop! Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.31 Message-ID: <1B811275629@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Dear Frederick, What is it really bothering you about this world? How do you think you will change things by hurting? Isn't there enough pain already? love, q. *************************************** Life is a pattern of relationships (*_*)